Prayers - 
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Virtual participation in proceedings commenced (Orders, 4 June and 30 December 2020).
[NB: [V] denotes a Member participating virtually.]

Oral
Answers to
Questions

Scotland

The Secretary of State was asked—

The Union

Stuart McDonald: What recent assessment he has made of the strength of the Union.

Alister Jack: We can assess the strength of the Union every day, as we see the number of people vaccinated across the country continue to rise, as we see the number of jobs we have protected and as we see our vital, ambitious plans to rebuild our economy. I am surprised the hon. Gentleman is asking about recent assessments, because the one thing we learned this week is that his boss, Nicola Sturgeon, has made no recent assessment of her plan to rip Scotland out of the United Kingdom and the damage that would cause.

Stuart McDonald: If the Secretary of State is so confident in the Union, why is he stopping the Prime Minister coming to Scotland to campaign for it? Have the dubious donations for renovations made that impossible? The contracts for contacts? The disgraceful comments about bodies piling high? Or is it simply that the Prime Minister represents a fundamental problem for Scotland being in the Union, with year after year of Prime Ministers, parties and policies that Scotland would not vote for in a million years?

Alister Jack: In all the conversations I have had with the Prime Minister—and I have them on a weekly basis, in person, one to one, by telephone—his passion for the United Kingdom and the strength of the United Kingdom burns brightly.

Douglas Ross: As of yesterday, 61.3% of Scots aged 16 or over have received at least one dose of covid vaccine, compared with just 24.3% of people aged 18 or over who have received a vaccine in the European Union. Does the Secretary of State agree that the outstanding efforts of our NHS staff, our British armed forces and our vaccination volunteers  have been possible here in Scotland only because of the success of the UK vaccination programme, and that Nicola Sturgeon’s claims that, somehow, an independent Scotland within the EU would have done it differently are complete rubbish?

Alister Jack: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. Just once, on something as important as live-saving vaccines, it would be nice to see the First Minister congratulate the Prime Minister and the United Kingdom Government on our highly successful UK-wide vaccine procurement programme.

Ian Murray: Mr Speaker, I hope you will allow me to pay tribute to everyone who is commemorating on International Workers’ Memorial Day today, and also to wish the Secretary of State a very happy Ed Balls Day, which is also today.
On “The Andrew Marr Show” on Sunday, the First Minister admitted that there has been no analysis done on the impact of separation on incomes—that is wages, livelihoods and, of course, pensions. It follows a long list during this election campaign where the SNP has avoided answering questions on currency, EU accession, jobs, deficit, debt, public spending, the parallels with Brexit and, of course, the spectacle of senior SNP MSPs saying last week that a border with England would be “desirable” because it would create jobs—a rare honest admission about a border with our largest trading partner. For two days in a row, respected think-tanks have warned that leaving the UK and giving up our share of UK resources means supercharged austerity.
Surely one of the strongest positive cases for the Union is the reality of separation. If proponents of separation continue to refuse to answer critical questions that fundamentally impact on people’s livelihoods, incomes and futures, what can be done to inject some much-needed honesty, integrity and truth into this debate, for the benefit of all Scots?

Alister Jack: I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman that independence would have a whole series of negative consequences for the people of Scotland, not just on their pensions and benefits but on currency, border issues and armed services. The list is endless. There has been no assessment of those things, as I said earlier.
This is the time when we should be coming together for covid recovery and to rebuild our economy, not even considering an irresponsible independence referendum. I would very much welcome it if the Labour party, and the other political parties, showed a willingness to come together to work on how we can strengthen our Union.

Ian Murray: Anas Sarwar has said throughout this campaign that we need to unite the country to deal with this global pandemic.
Talking of honesty, integrity and truth, will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to apologise on behalf of the Prime Minister for his “let the bodies pile high” comment, when so many have lost loved ones due to covid? There have been more than 800 deaths in my city of Edinburgh alone. While he is apologising, perhaps he can tell us, if the Prime Minister has nothing to hide, who funded the refurbishment of the Downing Street flat. Does he think the endemic sleaze in his Government, with continual questions about the personal conduct and integrity of the PM, strengthens or weakens the Union?

Alister Jack: What I would say on the bodies remark is that in every conversation I have had with the Prime Minister in the past year his desire, at all levels, has been to save lives and protect the NHS; we have had many conversations, in Cabinet Committees, in Cabinet and in private, and I have no recollection of him being anything other than totally focused on saving lives and protecting the NHS. He has been entirely focused on this pandemic all the way through. He has not been distracted, as others have, for example, the nationalists, with Nicola Sturgeon admitting that she took her eye off the ball. He has not taken his eye off the ball. He has been focused on the pandemic. He has tackled vaccines and the programme, and he now wants to lead our economic recovery. Those are the things we should hold him to account for; those are the things that strengthen the United Kingdom.

John Lamont: There has been much reckless chat from Scottish National party politicians about creating a hard border between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom. My constituents in the Scottish Borders want to see the threat of a border—and the threat of another referendum—removed. Does the Minister agree that the voters of Scotland have an opportunity to remove that threat next week in the Scottish elections by depriving the SNP of a majority and that the best way of doing that is by voting Scottish Conservative?

Lindsay Hoyle: Bit of a toughie.

Alister Jack: You will not be surprised to hear, Mr Speaker, that I do agree with my hon. Friend. I note with astonishment the comments of the South Scotland MSP Emma Harper that a border would be a good way of creating jobs, despite the fact that 60% of our trade is with the rest of the UK. All I would say is that if the SNP thinks that a border is such a good idea for jobs, I am surprised it does not want to go the whole hog and propose building a wall.

Mhairi Black: Particularly as we rebuild after covid, we have an opportunity and a need to make radically different economic choices. After a week of troublesome allegations about the Government and the Prime Minister, it should be no surprise that many in Scotland want to take a different, independent path to that of this Government. If that request is reflected in the upcoming Scottish Government elections and a majority of pro-independence MSPs are elected, will the Minister and his Government respect that as a mandate for a second independence referendum?

Alister Jack: First, let us not take the outcome of the election for granted at this stage. Let us recognise that the focus for Scotland must be on pandemic recovery. We have saved lives through the vaccine procurement, and it is now time to save livelihoods and to rebuild as one United Kingdom.

Mhairi Black: I did not hear an answer to my question there. The leader of the Scottish Conservatives was asked multiple times on recent media, “What would be the democratic path for Scotland to an independence referendum?” He could not answer the question, so can the Minister tell us what the path is?

Alister Jack: I say to the hon. Lady that in 2014 there was a referendum; it had been many years since the question had been asked, and that was with the consent of both Scotland’s Governments and all the main political parties. I am glad to say that in Scotland people shared my opinion in 2014 and consented to continue being members of the UK.

Pete Wishart: There is only one sure-fire way for the Union to be strengthened in the next week and that is to get the Prime Minister to Scotland and on the campaign trail. The Secretary of State surely knows that there will be throngs of happy Scots rejoicing in the Prime Minister’s sleaze-free presence, helping the Electoral Commission with its inquiries and sharing anecdotes about bodies piled high on the streets—what could possibly go wrong for the Scottish Tories? Can the Secretary of State and I start working on the itinerary? Surely Scotland deserves to see its Prime Minister before he inevitably has to resign.

Alister Jack: As the hon. Gentleman well knows, the Prime Minister’s diary is not my concern, and he certainly will not be resigning. I come back to the point I made earlier: in all my discussions with him, his passion for strengthening the UK burns very bright indeed.

Universal Basic Income

David Linden: What recent assessment his Department has made of the potential merits of trialling a universal basic income in Scotland.

Iain Stewart: The UK Government’s approach to welfare is to recognise the value and importance of work, make work pay and support people into work, while giving extra help to the most vulnerable in society. On that basis, we consider that a universal basic income is fundamentally the wrong approach.

David Linden: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. I know that he is committed to devolution and the respect agenda and would want to take very seriously the outcome of the election result in Scotland. Given that all the main parties in Scotland—representing 80% of Scottish voters—except the Conservatives have indicated support for trialling the concept of UBI, does the Minister accept that if indeed those parties are elected in the next Parliament, there will be a mandate and going ahead with trials would just be a matter of respecting devolution?

Iain Stewart: I make two points in response to the hon. Gentleman. First, if he looks around the world at where UBI has been trialled—in Finland and Canada, for example—it has not been a success. Indeed, the Finance Minister in Finland has scrapped it and is instead looking at something along the lines of our universal credit system. Secondly, the Scottish Government already have substantial powers over welfare.

Christine Jardine: Although I share the determination of the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) for a universal basic income as the way ahead and his disappointment that it is not being  trialled in Scotland, does the Minister share my disappointment that the SNP Government at Holyrood were not able to get their processes in shape in time to adopt the powers over welfare in the Scotland Act 2016 that might have given them more influence over the situation?

Iain Stewart: I certainly agree with the hon. Lady’s point that the Scottish Government still have much to do to unlock the full potential of the powers devolved to them in the Scotland Act 2016. We are committed to working closely with them to allow them to implement those powers. It strikes me that the separatists are always quick to demand more powers or more money to shift the blame away from their failures in office on delivering on the issues that matter to the people of Scotland.

COP26

John Howell: What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the potential opportunities for Scotland arising from COP26.

Alexander Stafford: What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the potential opportunities for Scotland arising from COP26.

David Duguid: I have regular discussions with ministerial colleagues, as well as industry stakeholders, on the opportunities that COP26 offers across Scotland. The COP26 devolved Administration ministerial group brings together the COP26 President, territorial Secretaries of State and devolved Administration Ministers to support the delivery of an inclusive and welcoming COP26 summit that is representative of the whole United Kingdom.

John Howell: Last year, the SNP Government missed their own legal emissions targets, with source emissions in Scotland actually increasing by 1.5% in 2017-18. Does my hon. Friend agree that, as we approach the crucial COP26 summit in Glasgow later this year, the Scottish people deserve a Government who are 100% focused on a green recovery, not on another divisive independence referendum?

David Duguid: I am sure you will agree, Mr Speaker, that it is not for me to answer for the failings of the Scottish Government. However, I assure my hon. Friend that the UK Government are absolutely focused on achieving a green recovery, as set out by the Prime Minister in his 10-point plan last year. This Government are also focused on safeguarding the Union, and I agree with my hon. Friend that a divisive referendum on Scotland’s separation from the UK at this time would be an irresponsible distraction from the necessary work required towards that green recovery.

Alexander Stafford: I welcome the ambitious new target that the Government set last week to cut the UK’s carbon emissions by 78% by 2035. Does my hon. Friend agree that in the run-up to the crucial COP26 summit later this year, it is more important than ever for all parts of the UK to work together so that we can meet that target and build back better and greener from the pandemic?

David Duguid: I completely agree with my hon. Friend. Our proposed world-leading target marks a decisive step towards net zero by 2050 and would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 78% by 2035, compared with 1990 levels. Through this year’s COP26 summit, we will urge countries and companies around the world to join us in delivering net zero globally. We continue to work together throughout all parts of the UK to achieve our net zero ambitions and a green recovery from the covid-19 pandemic.

Alan Brown: The Minister should be embarrassed that renewables generators in Scotland face the highest locational grid charges in the whole of Europe. Ahead of COP26, we need to see a route to market for pumped-storage hydro and for wave and tidal, the go-ahead given for Acorn carbon capture and storage and a contract for difference for hydrogen. What capability does the Scottish Office, working with Cabinet colleagues, have to get those matters resolved?

David Duguid: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I share his enthusiasm for all things related to energy renewables, but he will know as well as I do that, by law, transmission charging is a matter for Ofgem as the independent regulator. I imagine that he will also be aware that Ofgem is currently considering some aspects of transmission charging arrangements through its access and forward-looking charges review.

Angela Crawley: The SNP Scottish Government have committed to doubling their climate change justice fund if re-elected next week. This £21 million fund is used to help combat the effects of climate change in the global south while we tackle carbon emissions at home. In the year of COP26, will the UK Government follow Scotland’s lead and commit to a comparable climate justice fund to help those affected by climate change?

David Duguid: Not only will we commit to a comparable financial commitment, but the recent spending review committed to spending £12 billion on green measures to support the 10-point plan and boost the UK’s global leadership on green infrastructure and technologies, not just ahead of COP26 this year, but beyond as well.

Research and Innovation Funding: Scottish Universities

Andrew Gwynne: What recent assessment he has made of the effect of the recent reduction in official development assistance funding to UK Research and Innovation on Scottish universities.

Iain Stewart: The United Kingdom is and will remain a research superpower, with research and development spending at the highest level for four decades. The Government have committed to investing nearly £15 billion in R&D in 2021-22, much of which will be used to fund the work being led by our world-class universities.

Andrew Gwynne: Both Aberdeen and St Andrews universities stand to lose £2.5 million each as a result of official development assistance cuts. Among the ongoing projects at risk at Aberdeen is a £1.8 million research initiative into the spread of infectious diseases between  rodents and humans. Given that we have recently been reminded of the importance of long-term, well-funded research in responding to a global crisis, what steps are being taken to ensure that these cuts do not impair Scotland’s ability to respond to future crises?

Iain Stewart: The first point I would make to the hon. Gentleman is that I am always willing to discuss individual programmes with specific universities and I have done that through the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) in the case of St Andrews. The second point is that all the universities that he has listed have benefited from significant investments either directly through UK Research and Innovation or through our city and regional growth deal programmes, looking at R&D initiatives such as clean energy and sustainable farming.

Lindsay Hoyle: We now come to the shadow Minister, Chris Elmore.

Chris Elmore: It is strange, because Universities Scotland says that the ODA funding cut is unprecedented and egregious, yet the Minister stands at the Dispatch Box and says that it is okay because the universities get funding from other sources. Universities Scotland says that it amounts to a 70% cut in overseas funding for the development of projects across universities in Scotland. Can the Minister explain how these cuts are reconciled with the Conservative Government’s idea of their post-Brexit ambition to build a global Britain?

Iain Stewart: As I said in response to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne), I am more than happy to discuss individual programmes with the universities concerned, but if we look at R&D investment from this Government in the round, it is significantly up, and Scottish universities are punching above their weight in securing a share of that.

Defence Sector

Mark Menzies: What steps his Department is taking to support the defence sector in Scotland.

Antony Higginbotham: What steps his Department is taking to support the defence sector in Scotland.

Alister Jack: The defence industry in Scotland is strong, thanks to sustained UK Government spending. My Department has a close, positive relationship with the industry and the UK armed forces in Scotland, including on the implementation of the recent integrated review: defence Command Paper and the defence and security industrial strategy.

Mark Menzies: Shared expertise and infrastructure are key to supporting jobs across our United Kingdom, such as at Warton in my constituency and those north of the border at the BAE Systems site at Clyde. What estimates does my right hon. Friend make of the positive impact the UK Government’s defence manufacturing has on job opportunities for the people of Scotland?

Alister Jack: The Royal Navy shipbuilding programme will provide a pipeline of work and sustain valuable jobs and skills for shipyards around the United Kingdom,   including those in Scotland, in Rosyth and the Clyde, which are currently constructing the new frigate fleets. The Ministry of Defence has spent £2.7 billion with Scottish industry in 2019 and 2020 alone, and that has supported 12,400 jobs.

Antony Higginbotham: The integrated review published last month made it clear that our strongest asset is the capabilities, expertise and skills we have across the United Kingdom. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is the same expertise and skills, shared across the country, that has enabled us to spend billions of pounds over the next decade on shipbuilding in Scotland?

Alister Jack: Yes; I wholeheartedly agree. We saw a fine example of Scotland’s contribution to the UK’s defences this week with the deployment of our new aircraft carrier strike group, which was built in yards around the United Kingdom, but was constructed in Scotland. Her Majesty’s Ship Queen Elizabeth will fly the flag for global Britain right around the world.

Support for Businesses: Covid-19

Sally-Ann Hart: What assessment he has made of the adequacy of economic support for Scottish businesses during the covid-19 outbreak.

Iain Stewart: Last month’s Budget provides continued UK-wide support and security to manage the ongoing impacts of covid-19. One in three jobs in Scotland has been supported by the UK Government’s employment support package; Scottish businesses have benefited from more than £3.4 billion of loans and support; and we have provided a much needed boost to the Scottish tourism and hospitality sector with our UK-wide extension of the VAT reduction.

Sally-Ann Hart: Scotland’s Auditor General recently said that the Scottish Government had received an extra £9.7 billion from the UK Government during 2020-21 to tackle covid, yet it only made £7 billion-worth of spending announcements in response to the pandemic up to the end of 2020. The Auditor General said that that left £2.7 billion unallocated. Does my hon. Friend agree that this highlights the need for transparency and scrutiny of Scottish Government spending, as people in Scotland have a right to know how much money is being spent to help Scotland to deal with the pandemic?

Iain Stewart: My hon. Friend is right to draw the House’s attention to this alarming finding. People in Scotland want to know that the money that this Government have provided is reaching them and their businesses, and it is of great concern that Audit Scotland has identified this shortfall. I absolutely agree that there must be maximum transparency on this matter.

Free Trade Agreements

Robin Millar: What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the potential opportunities for Scotland arising from new free trade agreements.

Alister Jack: I regularly discuss with my Cabinet colleagues opportunities for Scotland arising from the signing of trade deals. This Government have already struck deals with 67 countries around the world worth £218 billion a year, including with Canada, Japan and Singapore—with many more to come. This will create new markets for Scotland’s exporters, including our world-leading food and drink sector.

Robin Millar: A new free trade agreement with Australia is now in sight for the UK. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is a tremendous opportunity for exporters of agricultural products, and food and drink producers, across Scotland and Wales?

Alister Jack: My hon. Friend is right about that and he is right to welcome the breakthroughs over the past few days with the Australian Government. Businesses in Scotland exported goods worth over £352 million to Australia in 2019, and reducing tariff barriers for our world-class food and drink industry could bolster Scotch whisky exports to Australia. As the Secretary of State for International Trade made clear at the weekend, this deal will be based on fair competition, maintaining our high standards and providing excellent, exciting opportunities for British products.

Scotland’s Constitutional Future

Neale Hanvey: What recent discussions he has had with the Scottish Government on Scotland’s constitutional future.

Iain Stewart: The UK Government work with the Scottish Government on a daily basis on a range of constitutional matters, including delivering on our devolution commitments through the Scotland Act order programme. I would have thought that a more interesting question would have been to ask what discussions his new party has had with the First Minister on an unnecessary and divisive further referendum on separation.

Neale Hanvey: When Scotland opens negotiations for independence following the election of a supermajority on 6 May, will those talks be led by the Secretary of State or the Minister for the Union—should, of course, he still be in post by that time?

Iain Stewart: The hon. Gentleman is being rather presumptuous about the outcome of the elections next week, so let us wait and see what the people of Scotland decide. I would have thought they would be more interested in keeping the protections of the pandemic in place, helping businesses to recover and helping children to catch up on the education that they have missed over the past year.

Prime Minister

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Andrea Jenkyns: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 28 April.

Boris Johnson: I know that the thoughts of Members across the House are with the people of India. We are supporting India with vital medical equipment and we will continue to work closely with the Indian authorities to determine what further help they may need.
I also welcome last week’s Court of Appeal decision to overturn the convictions of 39 former sub-postmasters in the Horizon dispute—an appalling injustice. Sir Wyn Williams is leading an ongoing independent inquiry that will report this summer.
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I will have further such meetings later today.

Andrea Jenkyns: [Inaudible.]

Lindsay Hoyle: You are on mute, I think, Andrea.

Andrea Jenkyns: [Inaudible.]

Lindsay Hoyle: Have you got the answer, Prime Minister? Tell us more about PMQs. I am sure the Prime Minister knows the answer. [Interruption.] We will try to come back to that question, and I will go to the Leader of the Opposition, Keir Starmer.

Keir Starmer: I join the Prime Minister in his remarks about the humanitarian disaster we are witnessing in India. I know the UK has already committed some support, but given the scale and gravity of the disaster, I hope the Foreign Secretary will set out today what more the UK will do to help the Indian people in their hour of need.
I also join the Prime Minister in his remarks about the Post Office case—an ongoing injustice. Of course, today is International Workers Memorial Day. This year, after all the sacrifices our frontline workers have made during the pandemic, it is even more poignant than usual. I join in solidarity with all those mourning loved ones today.
It was reported this week, including in the Daily Mail and by the BBC and ITV, backed up by numerous sources, that at the end of October the Prime Minister said he would rather have “bodies pile high” than implement another lockdown. Can the Prime Minister tell the House categorically, yes or no: did he make those remarks or remarks to that effect?

Boris Johnson: No, Mr Speaker. The right hon. And learned Gentleman is a lawyer, I am given to understand, and I think that if he is going to repeat allegations like that, he should come to this House and substantiate those allegations and say where he heard them and who exactly is supposed to have said those things. What I certainly can tell him—he asks about the October decisions—is that they were very bitter, very difficult decisions, as they would be for any Prime Minister, because no one wants to put this country into a lockdown, with all the consequences that means for loss of education, the damage to people’s life chances, and the huge medical backlog that it entails. But it was thanks to that lockdown—the tough decision that we took—and thanks to the heroic efforts of the British people that we have got through to this stage in the pandemic where we find ourselves rolling out our vaccine,  where we have done 50% of the population and 25% of the adult population have now had two doses. Lockdowns are miserable. Lockdowns are appalling things to have to do. But I have to say that I believe that we had absolutely no choice.

Keir Starmer: Well, somebody here is not telling the truth. The House will have heard the Prime Minister’s answer, and I remind him that the ministerial code says:
“Ministers who knowingly mislead Parliament will be expected to offer their resignation”.
I will leave it there for now. [Hon. Members: “Ooh!] There will be further on this, believe you me. Who initially —and “initially” is the key word here—paid for the redecoration of his Downing Street flat?

Boris Johnson: When it comes to misleading Parliament, the right hon. and learned Gentleman may recollect that it was only a few weeks ago that he said that he did not oppose this country leaving the European Medicines Agency—a fact that he was then forced to retract—and that leaving the European Medicines Agency was absolutely invaluable for our vaccine roll-out. Actually, it was just last week that he said that James Dyson was a personal friend of mine—a fact that James Dyson has corrected in the newspaper this morning. As for the latest stuff that he is bringing up, he should know that I paid for Downing Street refurbishment personally. Any further declaration that I have to make—if any—I will be advised upon by Lord Geidt.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman talks about housing costs. The people of this country can make their own decision in just eight days’ time, because on average, Labour councils charge you £93 more in band D than Conservative councils, and Liberal Democrat councils charge you £120 more. That, I think, is the issue upon which the British people would like him to focus.

Keir Starmer: Normally when people do not want to incriminate themselves, they go, “No comment.” Let us explore this a bit further. Let me ask it a different way. This is the initial invoice, Prime Minister. Either the taxpayer paid the initial invoice, or it was the Conservative party, or it was a private donor, or it was the Prime Minister. I am making it easy for the Prime Minister—it is now multiple choice. There are only four options. It should be easier than finding the chatty rat. I ask him again: who paid the initial invoice—the initial invoice, Prime Minister—for the redecoration of the Prime Minister’s flat?

Boris Johnson: I have given the right hon. and learned Gentleman the answer, and the answer is that I have covered the costs. Of course, the Electoral Commission is investigating this, and I can tell him that have I conformed in full with the code of conduct and the ministerial code, and officials have been advising me throughout this whole thing. But I think people will find it absolutely bizarre that he is focusing on this issue, when what people want to know is what plans a Labour Government might have to improve the lives of people in this country.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman talks about housing again. I would rather not spend taxpayers’ money like the last Labour Government, who spent £500,000 of taxpayers’ money on the Downing Street  flat. [Interruption.] Yes they did, tarting it up. I would much rather help people get on the property ladder, and it is this Conservative Government who have built 244,000 homes in the last year, which is a record over 30 years. This is a Government who get on with delivering on the people’s priorities, while he continually raises issues that most people would find irrelevant to their concerns.

Keir Starmer: The Prime Minister talks of priorities. What is he spending his time doing? This is a Prime Minister who, during the pandemic, was nipping out of meetings to choose wallpaper at £840 a roll. Just last week, he spent his time phoning journalists to moan about his old friend Dominic Cummings. He is telling the civil service to find out who paid for the redecoration of his flat—the Cabinet Secretary has been asked to investigate who paid for the refurbishment of the flat. Why doesn’t the Prime Minister just tell him? That would be the end of the investigation.
It has been widely reported that Lord Brownlow, who just happens to have been given a peerage by the Conservative party, was asked to donate £58,000 to help pay for the cost of this refurbishment. Can the Prime Minister, if he is so keen to answer, confirm: did Lord Brownlow make that payment for that purpose?

Boris Johnson: I think I have answered this question several times now, and the answer is that I have covered the costs. I have met the requirements that I have been obliged to meet in full. When it comes to the taxpayer and the costs of No. 10 Downing Street, it was under the previous Labour Government that I think Tony Blair racked up a bill of £350,000. I think what the people of this country want to see is minimising taxpayer expense. They want to see a Government who are focused on their needs and delivering more homes for the people of this country and cutting council tax, which is what we are doing. It is on that basis that I think people are going to judge our parties on 6 May.

Keir Starmer: Answer the question! That is what the public scream at their televisions every PMQs: “Answer the question!” The Prime Minister has not answered the question. He knows he has not answered the question. He never answers the question.
The Prime Minister will be aware that he is required to declare any benefits that relate to his political activities, including loans or credit arrangements, within 28 days—[Interruption.] Twenty-eight days, Prime Minister, yes. He will also know that any donation must be recorded in the register of Ministers’ interests, and that under the law any donation of over £500 to a political party must be registered and declared, so the rules are very clear. The Electoral Commission now thinks that there are reasonable grounds to suspect that an offence or offences may have occurred. That is incredibly serious.
Can the Prime Minister tell the House: does he believe that any rules or laws have been broken in relation to the refurbishment of the Prime Minister’s flat?

Boris Johnson: No, I don’t. What I believe has been strained to breaking point is the credulity of the public. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has half an hour every week to put serious and sensible questions to me about the state of the pandemic, about the vaccine roll-out, about what we are doing to support  our NHS, about what we are doing to fight crime, about what we are doing to bounce back from this pandemic, about the economic recovery, about jobs for the people of this country, and he goes on and on about wallpaper when, as I have told him umpteen times now, I paid for it.

Keir Starmer: Can I remind the Prime Minister of the Nolan principles, which are meant to govern the behaviour of those in public office? They are these: selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership. Instead, what do we get from this Prime Minister and this Conservative Government? Dodgy contracts, jobs for their mates and cash for access. And who is at the heart of it? The Prime Minister. Major Sleaze, sitting there.
Meanwhile—the Prime Minister talks about priorities—crime is going up, NHS waiting lists are at record levels and millions of people are worried about their jobs, including at Liberty Steel. Do not the British people deserve a Prime Minister they can trust, not a Government who are mired in sleaze, cronyism and scandal?

Boris Johnson: Last week, the right hon. and learned Gentleman came to this Chamber and he attacked me for talking to James Dyson about ventilators, when we are now sending ventilators to help the people of India, and the following day—the following day—Labour Front Benchers said that any Prime Minister in my position would have done exactly the same thing. It was only a few months ago that they were actually attacking Kate Bingham, saying she was a crony when she helped to set up the vaccine taskforce that delivered millions of vaccines for the people of this country and is helping us to get out of the pandemic.
This is a Government who are getting on with delivering on the people’s priorities. We are rolling out many more nurses, with 10,000 more nurses in the NHS now than there were this time last year, and 8,771 more police officers on our streets now than they were when I was elected, with tougher sentences for serious sexual and violent criminals, which the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposed. And, by the way, I forgot to mention it but last night our friends in the European Union voted to approve our Brexit deal, which he opposed. That enables us not just to take back control of our borders, but to deliver free—[Interruption.] It does, which he fervently opposed, enabling us, among other things, to deal with such threats as the European super league. It enables us to deliver freeports in places like Teesside. Above all, taking back control of our country has allowed us to deliver the fastest vaccine roll-out in Europe, as he well knows, which would not have been possible if we had stayed in the European Medicines Agency, which he voted for.
Week after week, the people of this country can see the difference between a Labour party that twists and turns with the wind and thinks of nothing except playing political games, whereas this party gets on with delivering on the people’s priorities, and I hope the people will vote Conservative on 6 May. [Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Let us see if we can calm it down a little.

Joy Morrissey: The UK is indeed a world leader in covid-19 vaccination. May I thank the Prime Minister for the swift action he has  taken to deliver this for our country, and will he join me in thanking the many local volunteers, such as Kirsty Griffiths who has been volunteering at the Marlow vaccine centre, and Guy Hollis and Paul Bass who have been volunteering alongside Denham community health centre? And thank you for the vaccine roll-out in South Bucks.

Boris Johnson: My hon. Friend should thank everybody involved, and it has been a fantastic national effort, led by the NHS—led overwhelmingly by GPs, but also by many others, including local council officers and officials and the Army, and of course huge numbers of volunteers in her constituency and elsewhere, and I thank Kirsty Griffiths, Guy Hollis and Paul Bass very much for everything they have done.

Ian Blackford: May I associate myself with the remarks of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition on the humanitarian crisis in India and the injustice in the Horizon issue at the Post Office?
Over 127,000 people have died from covid in the United Kingdom. People have lost their mothers and fathers, their grandparents and even their children. NHS staff have given their all, fighting to keep people alive. That is why so many people find the Prime Minister’s remark that he would rather let the bodies pile high in their thousands than go into lockdown utterly, utterly sickening. The BBC and ITV have multiple sources confirming that this is what the Prime Minister said. People are willing to go under oath confirming that the Prime Minister said these exact words—under oath, Mr Speaker. Parliamentary rules stop me saying that the Prime Minister has repeatedly lied to the public over the last week, but may I ask the question: are you a liar, Prime Minister?

Boris Johnson: Mr Speaker, I leave it to you to judge whether the right hon. Gentleman’s remarks were in order, but what I will say to him—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Unfortunately, they were in order, but were not savoury and not what we would expect.

Boris Johnson: I am grateful, Mr Speaker, but what I would say to the right hon. Gentleman is that if he is going to relay that kind of quotation, it is up to him in a place like Parliament to produce the author—the person who claims to have heard it— because I cannot find them. He says that they are willing to go on oath; perhaps they are sitting somewhere in this building; I rather doubt it, because I did not say those words.
What I do believe is that a lockdown is a miserable, miserable thing, and I did everything I could to try to protect the British public throughout the pandemic—to protect them from lockdowns, but also to protect them from disease. The right hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the wretched toll that covid has brought, and I know the whole House grieves for every family that has lost a loved one. It has been a horrendous time, but it is thanks to that lockdown combined with the vaccine roll-out that we are making the progress we are, and I may say that we are making progress across the whole of the United Kingdom.

Ian Blackford: Thank you, Mr Speaker, and of course it is the Prime Minister’s behaviour which is not in order. This is a Prime Minister who is up to his neck in a swamp of Tory sleaze. We have seen contracts for cronies, texts for tax breaks and cash for curtains. The Prime Minister has dodged these questions all week, and he has dodged them again today, but these questions simply are not going to go away. When exactly was money funnelled through Tory HQ into his personal bank account, when did he pay back this money, was it an interest-free loan, and who are the donor or donors who originally funded it? Is the Prime Minister aware that if he continues to fail to answer these questions, the Electoral Commission has the powers to prosecute him? Will the Prime Minister publish these details today, or is he going to wait until the police come knocking at his door?

Boris Johnson: As I have said, I look forward to what the Electoral Commission has to say, but I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that, for the rest of it, he is talking complete nonsense. The only thing I will say is that it is thanks to our investment in policing that we are going to have 20,000 more officers on the streets of our country, which is fantastic, and we will be making sure that that gets through to Scotland as well. What we want to see is a Scottish nationalist Government stopping obsessing about breaking up our country, which is all they can think and talk about, and instead talking about tackling crime and using that investment to fight crime, which is what I think the people of Scotland want to see.

Gary Sambrook: If the Prime Minister was to walk down Bristol Road South in Longbridge today, he would see a small army of JCB diggers levelling out the old MG Rover West Works site to provide one of the biggest levelling-up projects locally, with 5,000 extra jobs and an industrial site. But people also want to see the regeneration of Northfield High Street, with a proper plan and money on the table, so does the Prime Minister agree that we need people such as Andy Street—driven and energetic Mayors—delivering for the west midlands, working with me and local Conservative councillors to deliver on this plan? After all, teamwork makes the dream work.

Boris Johnson: I am lost in admiration for what Andy Street is doing. He is a fantastic Mayor of the West Midlands and he has a fantastic vision for transport, jobs, growth and recovery. I hope everybody votes for Andy Street on 6 May.

Lindsay Hoyle: Let us go to Liz Saville Roberts.

Liz Saville-Roberts: Diolch yn fawr, Llefarydd. I think it is worth repeating the ministerial code’s seven guiding principles: selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership. The Prime Minister has spent the week ticking them off his “don’t do” list. At the same time, he tries to play down allegations that he said “let the bodies pile high”. Given that the sole judge on questions relating to the conduct of Ministers and the conduct of the Prime Minister is the Prime Minister himself, what happens when a Prime Minister goes rogue?

Boris Johnson: The people of this country have the chance to make up their own minds on 6 May. When they look at what is happening in Wales, they have a  chance to make a choice between, I am afraid, a continually failing Welsh Labour Government or a Welsh Conservative Administration in Cardiff who I believe have a fantastic vision: 65,000 high-skilled, high-paid jobs; finally addressing the problems of the A55; 5,000 more teachers; getting 3,000 more nurses into the Welsh NHS; and solving the problems of the M4, which I have spoken about so movingly many times in this Chamber. I hope that people will avoid voting for Plaid Cymru and that they will vote for Welsh Conservatives on 6 May in Wales.

Duncan Baker: As probably the only former sub-postmaster in Parliament, I know that last Friday’s ruling was the beginning, not the end. Yes, it will cost a lot of money, and yes, it will take time and more compensation is needed, but does the Prime Minister agree that only a proper, judge-led public inquiry can really bring justice to the victims of this horrendous accounting scandal and hold to account those involved behind the scenes?

Boris Johnson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his expertise in this matter and thank him for what he has just said, because he is totally right. What happened to those Post Office workers—the postmasters and sub-postmasters—was appalling. It was one of the biggest miscarriages of justice in our history, and we are indeed looking at the issues involved. The former High Court judge Sir Wyn Williams will be making recommendations about what further actions—what further apologies—we need to make.

Hywel Williams: The PM just raised the matter of the Welsh general election. In March last year, this United Kingdom Conservative Government intercepted a deal between Wales and the Roche pharmaceutical company for 5,000 daily covid tests, instructing the company to
“reserve all additional Covid tests”
to England. Those tests would have been crucial to saving thousands of lives in Wales. As we go to the polls next week, will the Prime Minister tell us why Welsh lives meant so little to him?

Boris Johnson: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is completely wrong in what he says about tests, but he is right about one thing, which is that Wales has made an amazing contribution to our national fightback—our UK fightback—against covid. It was incredible again to go to the Wockhardt factory in Wrexham. It is Wockhardt, working together with Oxford Biomedica, that has enabled us to roll out the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine that has made such a difference. I want to say a massive thank you, again, to those Welsh scientists and all those people working in that factory, because they have helped to save countless lives across the UK.

Laura Farris: The integrated review confirms the vital role that the Atomic Weapons Establishment in Berkshire will play in our future nuclear capability. I want to pay tribute to the establishment, particularly the senior female employees who have won a slew of national awards for their work in defence science, engineering and nuclear security. Given the Government’s significant investment in all those sectors, will my right hon. Friend say how he plans to improve women’s participation in these fields, where historically they have been underrepresented, and may I invite him to the AWE to illustrate our success?

Boris Johnson: I would be honoured to take up my hon. Friend’s invitation as soon as I can. In terms of female representation in that sector, she will know that Alison Atkinson became the chief executive officer and managing director of AWE in May 2020, and there are huge numbers of opportunities for women to join our armed services, thanks above all to the biggest uplift in defence spending since the end of the cold war.

Sarah Olney: I welcome the Prime Minister’s commitment last week to include aviation and shipping in our emissions target, but surely he knows that we will miss that target if we proceed with a third runway at Heathrow, and, furthermore, that that would undermine the progress that the Government hope to make towards net zero. Will he therefore take this opportunity to commit to amending the airports national policy statement in the light of those commitments?

Boris Johnson: The third runway at Heathrow, as the hon. Lady knows, is a private sector venture, and it is up to them to produce the capital to do it. I do not see any immediate sign of that particular project coming off. I think what we should look at instead, and what we are looking at, is the prospect of jet-zero aviation and flying without emissions, or with far lower carbon emissions. It is in that area that the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and the Department for Transport are working together with manufacturers so that this country leads in guilt-free flying.

Stephen Crabb: Right now, in every part of the country, levels of business optimism are higher than they have been since the start of the pandemic, with many firms planning to hire more staff and create more apprenticeships for our young people. There is one factor, more than anything else, that underpins that optimism—the success of the UK vaccination programme. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there has never been a more important moment for voters in Scotland and Wales to reject the negativity and divisiveness of the nationalists, and instead look forward to a brighter and stronger future as one United Kingdom?

Boris Johnson: Absolutely. I do not know why the Leader of the Opposition’s PPS, the hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris), is shaking her head, because surely she would agree with that. We want to work together across the whole of the UK, and I pay tribute, as I have just said, to the incredible work of the Wockhardt factory in Wales, but there is also the Valneva factory in Scotland, and the whole of the United Kingdom coming together, represented by our armed services and, above all, by our NHS helping to deliver that vaccine roll-out to protect the country and take it forward.

Janet Daby: It is absolutely shocking that we have heard that the Electoral Commission is investigating funding of the Prime Minister’s Downing Street flat, saying that there are
“reasonable grounds to suspect…an offence”.
Why does the Prime Minister think that all these stories about sleaze, corruption and dishonesty keep happening to him and his Conservative Government?

Boris Johnson: I tell you what, Mr Speaker, I think it is because people are absolutely determined to find anything they can hang on to talk about, except the vaccine roll-out, except our plans to unite and level up across the country, except our plans to fight crime and give people the opportunity to buy their own homes; because they do not want to discuss those issues, because they cannot win on those issues, because they have absolutely nothing to say, and that is what has become clear over the last year.

Nicholas Fletcher: Before I ask my question, may I first ask the Prime Minister to join me in thanking all the staff at Doncaster Royal Infirmary and the emergency services for dealing swiftly with a major water leak yesterday? Fortunately, no one was hurt and all patients have been moved safely to other wards. However, to return to my original question, local elections are only days away, so will the Prime Minister offer his full support to the Doncaster Conservative mayoral candidate, James Hart? Like me, James is a local businessman and will shout out for our town and work closely with me on delivering the Government’s levelling-up agenda.

Boris Johnson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. [Interruption.] Hang on. He is right to want to thank all the staff of Doncaster Royal Infirmary for what they did for the emergency services in dealing with the incident last night, and I am glad to take the opportunity to do that. I am also glad to take the opportunity to support him in his campaign for James Hart. I do hope that the people of Doncaster will go out to vote and support him on 6 May.

Chris Matheson: The Prime Minister promised in a series of texts to “fix” a tax issue for his mate Sir James Dyson. At the Dispatch Box last week, the Prime Minister promised to publish those texts, but of course he has not made good on that promise. When will he publish them?

Boris Johnson: I promised to publish the account of my dealings with James Dyson, which is exactly what I have done. I cannot believe that the Opposition do not learn their lesson. They attacked the Government last week for having any kind of discussions with a potential British ventilator maker, and the following day they did a U-turn and said that any Prime Minister would do it. They have now done a W-turn, and they are trying to bash me again. Which is it? Do they believe the Government should be supporting British manufacturing in delivering ventilators—yes or no? That is the question for Labour.

Luke Evans: My constituency is best known for the battle of Bosworth, but we also have many other attractions, such as Twycross zoo, Mallory Park racecourse, Burbage common and Thornton reservoir. These attractions all support superb cafes and pubs. With the bank holiday weekend coming up, does the Prime Minister have any plans, and does he want to pop up to Bosworth? More importantly, what are the Government doing to support these attractions and domestic tourism as we go into the summer?

Boris Johnson: I thank my hon. Friend. No matter how many pints I joined him in lifting in the pubs of Bosworth, it could not do as much for the economy of  Bosworth as what we are already doing with the £56 million welcome back fund, which is probably even more welcome than my presence in Bosworth, I venture to suggest—that is hotly contested, perhaps. We have extended the cut in VAT for tourism and hospitality to 5% right the way through until the end of September.

Lilian Greenwood: Is not the truth behind all of this—the sleaze, the scandals, the jobs for your mates, the cash for curtains —that the Prime Minister thinks that rules, laws and decency are for other people? He thinks they are for the sort of people who shop at John Lewis, Ikea or Argos and who do not have wealthy donors to fund their lifestyles, not for people like him and his Ministers.

Boris Johnson: I think that what people think is that the Labour party is losing all the arguments across British politics, that it has nothing to say, and that it has no plan for our future and no vision for our country. People see a Conservative Government who are getting on with uniting and levelling up, with the most ambitious agenda any Government have had for generations, and I think that is what they are listening to.

Ben Bradley: Next week, residents here in Nottinghamshire will go out to vote for the first time since that incredibly successful 2019 election, where they elected a broad slate of Conservative MPs across every constituency in this county. Despite that success, many areas, such as Mansfield, in much of the new blue wall across the midlands and the north still have mainly Labour councillors at a local level. Does my right hon. Friend have a message for Nottinghamshire voters, who have the opportunity next week to elect a Conservative local team who can work with our MPs to deliver for Nottinghamshire?

Boris Johnson: I do, and I thank my hon. Friend for all the wonderful work that he does for his constituency. My message would be, yes, I hope that the people of Nottinghamshire will get out and vote Conservative. It is we who share their priorities on crime, on the NHS, on investment in infrastructure and on levelling up across our country, so I hope they will vote Conservative on 6 May.

Rachel Hopkins: When were the Prime Minister and his chief of staff first made aware of the plan for a European super league?

Boris Johnson: I first was made aware of the plan for a European super league on, I think, the Sunday night, and we acted decisively using the arsenal   of legislative freedoms that we now have thanks to leaving the European Union, which the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) opposed, of course. We acted decisively to make clear that the UK Government took a dim view of this matter. [Interruption.] And the same goes for my chief of staff.

Siobhan Baillie: My constituency of Stroud recently won the title of best place to live. There is much to visit there, including an historic lamp standard that was erected to celebrate Queen Victoria’s diamond jubilee. Next year, our own Queen will mark 70 years since her accession to the throne. Will the Prime Minister join me in supporting the gift being proposed by Parliament to mark Her Majesty’s platinum jubilee?

Boris Johnson: I thank my hon. Friend for that wonderful proposal, and I certainly encourage all colleagues to support and contribute to her project.

Lindsay Hoyle: We are going back to Andrea Jenkyns.

Andrea Jenkyns: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Next week, we will elect our first Mayor of West Yorkshire.
Does the Prime Minister agree that for far too long Labour has taken our northern heartlands for granted? On Thursday 6 May, we have the opportunity to elect patriotic, hard-working northerners such as Matt Robinson, Ben Houchen, and Jill Mortimer in Hartlepool. They will be strong voices and champions for infrastructure, housing and jobs. We must seize the chance to build back better after the pandemic, and only the Conservatives will deliver on that. [Interruption.]

Boris Johnson: Well, Mr Speaker, they don’t like that sort of thing, do they? They don’t like focusing on the issues that actually matter to the British people and the people of West Yorkshire.
I thank my hon. Friend, who is absolutely right. I hope that on 6 May the people will get out and vote for a party that believes in supporting our NHS; that believes in fighting crime, not being soft on crime; and that will bring jobs and regeneration across the country. I hope that they will vote Conservative on 6 May.

Lindsay Hoyle: I am suspending the House for a few minutes to enable the necessary arrangements for the next business.
Sitting suspended.

Government Support for India

Lisa Nandy: (Urgent Question)  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if he will make a statement on the support the Government are providing to the Indian Government.

Nigel Adams: The heartbreaking scenes in India in recent days have shocked us all. The pandemic has brought horrific human suffering, and we send our solidarity and condolences to the Indian people at this difficult time. As the Prime Minister has said, we stand side by side with India as a friend and partner in the fight against covid-19.
The Foreign Secretary spoke with his counterpart, Minister for External Affairs Jaishankar, on 26 April. He emphasised the UK’s commitment to provide urgent medical equipment to support our Indian friends at this difficult time. Ministers and officials are in close contact with their counterparts in the Indian Government to follow up on that commitment. The Government of India told us that oxygen has been a particular challenge, so we have moved quickly to provide a package of urgent medical equipment to address that need. The first shipment, of 200 ventilators and 95 oxygen concentrators, arrived in India in the early hours yesterday, and is already being distributed to Indian hospitals. A further 400 oxygen concentrators will follow today and tomorrow. This equipment will boost oxygen supplies in India’s hospitals, which remain under severe pressure, so there is no doubt that the support provided by the United Kingdom will save lives.
I am pleased that other countries are also responding to India’s needs. The pandemic has shown the importance of international action. No one is safe until everyone is safe, so we will keep working closely with the Indian Government to help them to meet the huge challenge they face, and we will continue to show our solidarity with the Indian people.
This response is just a part of the UK’s wider international effort to tackle the pandemic. The United Kingdom has committed up to £1.3 billion of official development assistance funding to address the health, economic and humanitarian impacts of covid-19. We have been at the forefront of efforts to get vaccines to developing countries—we are one of the largest donors to the COVAX advanced market commitment, created to do just that. Our commitment of £548 million will support the distribution of 1.3 billion doses of vaccines to up to 92 low and middle-income countries; this includes India.
Despite the urgency of the current situation in India, this remains an important year in the UK-India relationship. India is a key partner for the UK and the Prime Minister had planned to visit India this week. Regretfully, he had to postpone due to the covid-19 outbreak. He now has plans to speak to Prime Minister Modi via video link in the coming period to take forward key deliverables across trade, defence, climate change, health and migration. We also look forward to the Prime Minister meeting Prime Minister Modi as the UK hosts the G7 summit in June and to welcoming India’s guest participation in the G7 foreign and development ministerial  meeting next week. Subject to the covid-19 situation in India, there may also be an opportunity for the Prime Minister to visit in person later in the year.
We stand with the Indian people in this time of need, taking our lead from what the Indian Government advise us is most useful. We face this pandemic together and the UK will continue to support global efforts to overcome the grave challenges that we all face today.

Lisa Nandy: The domestic tragedy engulfing India is now of such a scale that it constitutes a global emergency. India is now afflicted with at least 40% of all new cases in the world. More than 2 million have been confirmed in the last week alone and the peak of this crisis may yet be weeks away. This surely ought to be a priority for the Foreign Secretary, who I expected to have made a statement to this House as the scale of the crisis became clear over the last 10 days.
For more than 1 million Britons with loved ones in India, this is a moment of fear and anxiety. The ties between our countries are woven into the fabric of this nation—something that, through my own heritage, I am personally and acutely aware of. Many Britons of Indian origin will have gone to work today in our NHS and in our care homes, helping to carry us through this crisis, while desperately worried about loved ones in India. We can and must do more.
Can I hear from the Minister today a clear plan to ramp up the delivery of vital equipment? I welcome the 600 pieces of equipment that we have shipped so far, but he will know through his discussions, as I do, that India is still badly short of oxygen cylinders, concentrators, ventilators and therapeutic drugs, especially remdesivir. He must co-ordinate with our global partners. I spoke to the EU ambassador this morning to discuss how we can avoid duplication and get help quickly to where it is most needed. Has the UK been part of discussions at the UN and with the World Health Organisation? The Minister needs a plan for increasing the production and manufacturing capacity for vaccines and to overcome barriers to expanding supply. I was surprised not to hear a commitment to make good on the Health Secretary’s promise to throw open our unique expertise to the world. We are world leaders in genomic sequencing and epidemiology. Tracking mutations and variants would be a major contribution not just to India, but to the world.
It is now almost a year to the day when the UK, steeped in our own crisis, woefully unprepared for the pandemic, was forced to ask the world for help. It was India who stepped forward and approved the export of 3 million packets of paracetamol in an act of solidarity and friendship. There are millions of people in India, around the world and here in the UK for whom this is really a test of the bond between our two nations. I heard what the Minister said. I thank him for his warm words, but words are not enough. Now is the time to step forward with a real plan of action to tackle this domestic tragedy and this global emergency.

Nigel Adams: I thank the hon. Lady for her questions. The Foreign Secretary may very well have answered this question today, but he is in Geneva speaking to the UN, so he is out of the country.
The hon. Lady makes some good points, particularly on the co-operation we saw from the Indian people and the Indian Government specifically around drugs last year.  We are very thankful for the support we had in that regard. She references words, not deeds. I think what we have seen over the weekend is deeds, not words. We were the first country to deliver support to the Indian people. In fact, it is absolutely the case—this has been described by the BBC, no less—that the UK has been commended for the speed of its initial package. The BBC described it as
“the first international shipment aimed at stemming a devastating Covid-19 surge.”
I am not entirely sure how much quicker we could have been. We have been working on this late last week and over the weekend. I would like to thank staff across our networks and in the Department of Health and Social Care for all the work they have done in putting together this package. Instead of talking, we were shipping and delivering these vital pieces of equipment there, and there is more equipment and support to come. We are continuing to speak with the Indian Government on what they require, and we will respond to what their requirements are in very short order.

Thomas Tugendhat: Yesterday, I had the great privilege of speaking to my Indian opposite number, who expressed great gratitude for the UK’s contribution to support the Indian people, and I was very pleased that he said so. However, India is not the only country with which we have a living bridge and a common feeling. We need to make sure that we are prepared to support other countries in the Commonwealth, not just for their benefit, but for ours. Can the Minister assure me that we are ready, that we have the ODA budget available and that we are prepared to act should such a pool of infection arise in any other country, particularly one with which we share such a close link?

Nigel Adams: I thank my hon. Friend, the Chairman of the Select Committee, for that question. Of course, we are speaking with our international partners on a regular basis. This is a situation where no one is safe until everybody is safe. We are working collaboratively and a good example of that is vaccines. We are one of the biggest contributors to the vaccine programme, the COVAX programme, which has been set up particularly to support countries in this regard. We will continue to do whatever we need to do to support our international partners. What we had to do, because of the pressing emergency in India, which is one of our closest allies, was react quickly and get the equipment into the planes and on to the ground, and that is exactly what we have done.

Chris Law: The scenes we have all seen emerging from India are truly tragic and our hearts go out to all those who are suffering. There is nothing more tragic than seeing people dying on pavements outside already overstretched and under-resourced hospitals that are full of covid patients, and dead loved ones being lined up for cremation. Sadly, we must recognise that the scenes in India will not be the last of the devastation of covid that we see, and the UK must step up its efforts, not just in India, but across the world.
It is welcome that the UK has been able to offer some support to India, but what assistance is being provided on vaccines to prevent further covid waves across the  country? Furthermore, will the UK Government support a waiver to overcome intellectual property barriers, so that developing countries have much-needed access to vaccines and we do not see what is happening in India replicated elsewhere? Finally, given the need for a fully resourced global vaccine roll-out, will the Government finally listen to the experts and retreat from the proposed cut to the UK’s life-saving aid at this critical time?

Nigel Adams: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions. It is clear that we have been at the forefront of efforts to get vaccines to developing countries— I cannot think of many countries that have done more. I have mentioned the advance market commitment via COVAX. That was created to deliver exactly that. We will be supporting the distribution of 1.3 billion doses of vaccines to up to 92 low-income and middle-income countries—that includes India. Obviously, we will need to complete our own roll-out and we will be looking at what we do if there are any surplus doses available. We will keep that under constant review. But I am proud of our commitments: the £548 million, and leading last year’s international funding conference on vaccines to help protect those who need our assistance.

Debbie Abrahams: As it is in the UK, the impact of covid in India is a human tragedy. I heard from a family friend in Delhi who says that people are terrified, frantically looking for beds and oxygen, with disgraceful profiteering ramping up prices and making support unaffordable for the poor. As we have heard, nearly half of all global covid cases are now in India, and nowhere in the world is safe until we are all safe, so it is absolutely right that the UK has provided ventilators and oxygen, but there are also issues with vaccination logistics and therapeutic supplies. Can I ask what the Minister knows about how Kashmiris in Indian-administered Kashmir are faring, given that there has been no opportunity for an independent visit to the region by parliamentarians or journalists since the revocation of articles 370 and 35A nearly two years ago?

Nigel Adams: I am not the Minister responsible for those particular countries, but we have regular dialogue. My noble Friend Lord Ahmad, the Minister responsible for that region, speaks regularly with representatives from Pakistan and India, and I am happy to ask him to give the hon. Lady an update.

Caroline Nokes: Many of us have constituents who are deeply worried about loved ones in India. Please will my hon. Friend reassure them that the Foreign Secretary will continue to engage with the Indian Government on the practical help that is needed and how we can provide it?

Nigel Adams: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right: in the past few days, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has spoken directly with Foreign Minister Jaishankar on exactly that issue. We are responding to the Indian Government’s requests and listening to what they are telling us. We were the first country to respond and to get wheels on the ground and deliver equipment. A huge emergency is affecting India and we have responded. We will continue to speak to the Indian Government and see what further assistance we can deliver to them.

Scott Benton: Given the exceptional budgetary challenges that face the Treasury, the overwhelming majority of my constituents support the decision to temporarily reduce the foreign aid budget. Of course, we will still be spending more money on international aid than nearly every other nation on earth, allowing us to support nations in their hour of need. Nine airline containers full of life-saving equipment have already been shipped out to India. Will my hon. Friend confirm that he will continue to engage with the Indian Government to provide any further assistance as required?

Nigel Adams: My hon. Friend is right to point out the support that we have already delivered to our Indian friends. Our teams worked round the clock and over the weekend to ensure that that first shipment of 200 ventilators and 95 oxygen concentrators arrived in India yesterday morning. As I said, we were the first to deliver support to India. Given the rapidly changing situation on the ground, we are working closely with our counterparts to ensure that we are co-ordinated, and we are in close contact with the Indian Government in respect of anything else that they need.

Layla Moran: What is happening in India is an absolute tragedy, but it is also a stark warning that this virus thrives when we relax—after all, many in India thought that they had beaten the virus. Every time a surge happens, the virus mutates faster, and with every mutation our collective fight goes back a step. There is only one way to beat this virus, and that is to work together in lockstep, across the global community, to keep cases low, minimise the risk of new variants and vaccinate. Will the Minister now commit not only to increasing the money that the UK gives to COVAX—as much as that is, we need to do more—but to starting to share vaccine doses through COVAX now, today?

Nigel Adams: The hon. Lady is right to ask about vaccine doses, but right now we are moving through the UK prioritisation list—that is what the country would expect us to do, I think—for our domestic roll-out and we do not currently have surplus doses. We do, though, keep the situation under constant review. Of course, I recognise that with this pandemic no one is safe until we are all safe; that is why I am proud that, despite the challenging financial pressures that the pandemic has brought, the United Kingdom has donated more than half a billion pounds to COVAX. We led the international vaccine funding conference last year, and in every conversation that my colleagues and I, as a Foreign Minister, have, we are encouraging our counterparts around the globe to do the same and to contribute to COVAX.

Gagan Mohindra: As someone who has family in India, it breaks my heart to see what is happening there. Some of the most worrying stories coming out of India have been reports of a lack of available oxygen for patients in need. Can my hon. Friend confirm that a key portion of the equipment that our Government are delivering is made up of the oxygen concentrators and ventilators that are so desperately needed?

Nigel Adams: My hon. Friend speaks from the heart. As I have said, I want to thank the teams in the FCDO around the globe for working on this. We have been the  first to respond. We are providing the life-saving medical equipment that he refers to, which includes 495 oxygen concentrators and 200 ventilators. That equipment is based on the most acute need, which has been communicated to us by the Indian Government. I understand why people are so passionate about this, and this simply will help to save the lives of the most vulnerable in India.

Tonia Antoniazzi: Given that the population of India is 1.3 billion and the country is currently recording more than 320,000 new covid infections every day, does the Minister agree with a senior Indian health official who described the support that has been received so far as a “drop in the ocean”?

Nigel Adams: We have been first out of the blocks. We have provided from surplus stocks the ventilators and the oxygen concentrators. Of course, it is a huge country, which is why we continue to liaise with the Indian Government to see what further we can do. We are going to be doing more in terms of equipment, but we have responded quicker than anybody else. We have planes on the ground delivering equipment. There are more planes going out there today and tomorrow with more equipment, and we will continue to work with the Indian Government, listen to their requests and respond.

Karl McCartney: Our special relationship with India is a bond of kinship and affinity rooted in the living bridge that is the Indian diaspora. As we now seek a transformative post-Brexit UK-India relationship, it is only right that the Government are taking the initial steps to assist India at this unprecedented time. It has been heartening to see 1 billion shoulders to the wheel, be it the Oxygen Express run by the railways or the Indian air force flying back empty oxygen tanks for Indian industry to refill, which has risen to the desperate need. France and Germany have managed to rapidly assist India significantly with the supply of cryogenic oxygen tanks, which can store and transport a much bigger quantity of liquid oxygen. Can my hon. Friend say what steps our Government have taken or are taking to assist similarly, befitting our vision for the UK-India relationship that we seek to build?

Nigel Adams: I thank my hon. Friend for that point. I am not particularly aware of the arrangement that France and Germany have and whether that is a commercial arrangement that the Indian Government have entered into, but it is certainly something we can look into. We have been working incredibly closely with our technical experts in the Department of Health and Social Care on how to respond to the most urgent needs, while ensuring that the equipment sent can be used and will make a difference. Donating oxygen cylinders, as some people have called for, has been rejected, as compatibility issues would prevent them from being refilled within India. We are taking the lead from the Indian Government on what their most urgent priorities are, so that we can ensure that whatever support we provide matches their requests.

Philippa Whitford: The Minister keeps repeating that no one is safe until everyone is safe, but the reality is that 80% of all covid vaccines have been delivered in just 10 wealthy countries, and COVAX is struggling to obtain vaccines. Unless  there is greater international solidarity, other healthcare systems like India’s will collapse, and vaccine-resistant variants will inevitably threaten those who live here. Does the Minister not accept that the UK needs to play its part by lifting the ban on exporting vaccines, sharing covid technology with others and increasing, rather than slashing, overseas aid?

Nigel Adams: I cannot think of many countries that are doing more than the United Kingdom on vaccines for the international community. It was absolutely right that we moved through the United Kingdom’s vaccine priority list for our own roll-out, and, as I have said in answer to a previous question, there are currently no surplus doses. I am proud of the fact that we are one of the biggest donors to COVAX. COVAX will be supporting the distribution of 1.3 billion vaccines across 92 countries that need that support, which includes India.

Christopher Chope: May I express strong solidarity with my hon. Friend in his words of sympathy with our Indian friends? Would it be possible for Indian citizens, who are living here in the United Kingdom, to travel to India should they so wish, so that they can help their grieving relatives or provide other support? It would surely be unreasonable to prevent people leaving our country who wish to go and help in these circumstances.

Nigel Adams: Of course, I absolutely get the point that my hon. Friend has made. People will be incredibly worried. I have friends with Indian heritage and they are at their wit’s end about what is happening in India. As for travelling to India, he will be aware that we did add India to our red list. That was to ensure that we protect against variants and other developing variants. The situation in India has deteriorated. Currently, travel abroad is against the law and, until that situation changes, people in the UK need to be mindful of the travel advice.

Chi Onwurah: I have spoken to people at Newcastle’s Hindu temple who have emphasised just how distressing these desperate scenes from India are for those with friends and family living there and, indeed, for all of us. We have known of the concerns for some time now. That is why the Prime Minister cancelled his visit. Given our special links to India, what conversations has the Minister had with counterparts in the United States and the European Union to ensure that international assistance is co-ordinated and effective?

Nigel Adams: That is a very good question. We are regularly in contact with our counterparts, co-ordinating support. That is why COVAX was set up in the first place for vaccines. I understand that the EU is in the process of co-ordinating support for this emergency. I am not entirely sure when its shipments will arrive, but it is certainly on the case, as is the United States, but rest assured we do speak to our international partners when an emergency such as this flares up.

David Johnston: I think that everyone in the country has been distressed by the images of the reports they have seen in India. I welcome my hon.  Friend’s statement about the equipment that we have provided and the speed at which we have done so. Obviously, India is a vastly different size to the UK, but if it is wanted, will we also provide logistical advice from the NHS, the Army and our scientists on the things they have learned about how to best control the spread of this virus and get vaccinations to people as quickly as possible?

Nigel Adams: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. We stand ready to provide support in whatever form it comes. That is why we are talking to the Indian Government, asking them what support they require. We need to do that not only to understand what they require, but to ensure that what they require and what we supply are in lockstep. Given this spread of the pandemic, we are working closely not only with our Indian counterparts, but with other countries to ensure that we can co-ordinate and support those with the most urgent need.

Khalid Mahmood: I commend the support that the Government are providing promptly to the Indian people during this devastating covid surge, and my thoughts and prayers are with all those affected. Realistically, in order to tackle this issue, do we not need to start providing licences particularly for those countries on the subcontinent, where in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh there are almost 2 billion people who could be dealt with by giving them the ability to produce vaccines themselves and therefore better look after themselves and help to reduce the effects of covid very quickly? Will the Minister look at supporting the people of Kashmir, who have been under lockdown because of the situation in India for the past 18 months, so that they receive their fair proportion of the aid and the vaccines that we are supporting them with?

Nigel Adams: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. We are providing support to the Indian Government, but it is for the Indian Government to decide and not for us to dictate where that support goes or how it is rolled out. Of course, as he will know, India is one of the largest manufacturers of vaccine, and those supplies are under pressure, as they are with all manufacturers. However, we will continue liaising with the Indian Government to find out what they require, and if we can match their demands we will supply it.

Bob Blackman: I congratulate my hon. Friend and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office on their offer of help and the provision that has been made to the Indian Government. He will know that at a time of humanitarian crisis, the people of this country are incredibly generous. Members of the Indian diaspora, in particular, are conducting fundraising events via temples and other religious places across the country this weekend, including the world-famous Neasden temple, where people are doing a sponsored static bike ride of 7,600 km—the distance between London and New Delhi. What advice is being given to those religious organisations who are raising money to make sure the money gets to the right place at the right time to assist in alleviating the suffering going on in India?

Nigel Adams: There are many champions of constituents of Indian heritage in this House, none more so than my hon. Friend. I am being made aware of some incredible fundraising efforts across the country where there are large Indian diasporas, with people raising money through various means. That is really heartwarming to see. It is absolutely the case that that needs to be delivered in the most efficient way. I will find out through what mechanism the advice is being filtered down to those communities. He raises a brilliant point, as ever, and I will make sure that by the end of today he is able to have some information to take to his communities to ensure that they are doing the right thing. I am sure that everybody is doing the right thing; we just have to make sure that it is delivered in the correct way.

Steven Bonnar: Only last week I stood here and questioned this Tory Government’s obscene betrayal of those in need by cutting the foreign aid budget. This week we have perhaps seen the direct consequences of such decisions. I am sure that, along with every Member, they agree with me that the scenes from India are nothing short of devastating and we cannot stand idly by while oxygen becomes a premium and not an easily obtainable necessity. Given the severity of the situation, will the Minister now go on record to say that the UK Government will undertake any and every possible measure of support for India and her people, including the potential distribution of vaccines when we are in a position to do so?

Nigel Adams: I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s sentiments, apart from his first sentence, which was a mild dig. We will continue to support India. We were the first country to do so when this crisis flared up. We were not talking about it; we were actually getting on with it and doing it, delivering ventilators and oxygen concentrators: there are more in the air now and they are going to land today and tomorrow. So we are continuing to do that work. In terms of vaccines, it would be great if he could point me to who is doing more, as I said, in terms of putting more money into COVAX that is going to help 1.3 billion people. The priority, obviously, is the domestic roll-out of the vaccines that we have, and once we have a clear idea of surplus, we will be in a position to support other countries.

Jane Stevenson: So many of my fellow Wulfrunians have friends, family and other loved ones in India. I thank the Government for their swift response to this heartbreaking situation. What discussions is my hon. Friend having with our international partners, so that we can encourage them to send similar assistance and ensure that the global effort is as effective as possible?

Nigel Adams: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. All hon. and right hon. Members today are speaking up passionately for their constituents in their particular areas. Co-operation on an international level is absolutely at the heart of responding to this pandemic. It is a pandemic that obviously does not recognise borders, so we have been speaking directly with the Indian Government to understand what they need. As I said, we are in regular contact with a range of international partners to ensure that we support, co-ordinate and do everything we can to respond to the needs of India at this difficult time.

Zarah Sultana: The images from India are horrifying—from people gasping for air and dying—[Inaudible]—with hospitals overrun, to seas of blazing makeshift pyres. This is a human catastrophe for India, and, with a virus that does not respect borders, none of us is safe until we are all safe. Vaccine supply is artificially limited by patents, leading to the global vaccine apartheid. At the Word Trade Organisation, India and South Africa have proposed a temporary waiver to vaccine patents, allowing production—[Inaudible]—expand. Public money funded these vaccines, so will the Government put public health before the profits of big pharma and support a waiver of the vaccine patents?

Nigel Adams: The audio was a bit in and out there, but I think I got the gist of the hon. Lady’s question. As I have said several times in my response, we are doing an immense amount. We are at the forefront of efforts to ensure that vaccines are getting to the most vulnerable countries—to developing countries—as well as being, I think, the second or third largest donor to the COVAX programme. I gently remind the hon. Lady that that support will assist 1.3 billion people in low and middle-income countries across the globe, including India, where we have seen such horrific scenes; our hearts are with them.

Marco Longhi: Does the Minister agree that the coronavirus pandemic has demonstrated more than ever before the absolute need for strong and reliable partners, especially in the interconnected world in which we all live? Will he confirm that the Prime Minister will, in fact, be visiting India as soon as the country recovers from this dreadful outbreak?

Nigel Adams: My hon. Friend raises a good point. The irony is that the Prime Minister would have been in India had it not been for this latest outbreak. I know that he will be speaking to Prime Minister Modi shortly via video link. We want to ensure that we continue that co-operation on trade, defence, climate change and health, which is absolutely key. We want to finalise a 2030 road map for future India-UK relations that will provide a strategic basis for our relationship in the coming years. We look forward to the Prime Minister meeting Prime Minister Modi as soon as practically possible. Depending on how the pandemic goes in India, there may be an opportunity for the Prime Minister to visit in person later this year.

Navendu Mishra: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) for securing this urgent question. I have family in India and, like others, I have found the news from the country quite distressing. Do the Government believe that people in low and middle-income countries should have fair and timely access to life-saving covid vaccines and drugs? If so, are the Government willing to reverse their position on opposing the proposal from India and South Africa of a patent waiver in relation to covid vaccines, medicines and medical equipment at the World Trade Organisation?

Nigel Adams: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we agree that low and middle-income countries should have equitable access to vaccines. That is why we are putting over half a billion pounds of UK taxpayers’  money into the COVAX arrangement, and also 1.3 billion people in those countries will be assisted by the vaccines that will be provided.

Edward Leigh: Over the years, quite a few people—including, I must admit, myself —have questioned aspects of international aid and its efficiency, but I wonder if the Minister will acknowledge that public opinion is changing in the middle of a global pandemic, with international aid being seen not just as a moral duty—we are part of one humanity. If health systems around the world collapse, sooner or later it will come back to bite us. In that respect, can the Minister give a categorical assurance that the recent overseas aid budget cuts will not have affected in any way our ability to help the world’s poorest countries deal with this global pandemic?

Nigel Adams: My right hon. Friend makes a very good point. The total amount that FCDO will spend on global health is £1.3 billion and this will be focused on the UK’s position at the forefront of the international response to covid, not just through our commitments with COVAX and the vaccines I have been talking about, but also through the Gavi alliance and the World Health Organisation. Our investment and expertise will be brought to bear on issues where we can make the most difference and achieve maximum impact and value for money.

Christine Jardine: As many hon. Members have said, the images from India are both difficult to watch and painful for many of our constituents with family there. In light of what is happening, how much of the 1.3 billion that is going into covid relief worldwide is going to India? Might that be reviewed in light of what is happening across the world, with a view to upgrading it?

Nigel Adams: I think the hon. Lady was referring to the 1.3 billion vaccine doses; perhaps she can nod if that is the case.

Christine Jardine: indicated assent.

Nigel Adams: Of course, we have made our commitment and our financial commitment to COVAX. It will decide where the vaccines to 92 low and middle-income countries will go; that decision will be taken not by the UK but strategically by COVAX through the advanced market commitment it is operating. However, we have committed the money; we are paying the money and we should be proud of the support that the United Kingdom is giving for international vaccines.

Claire Coutinho: Like the 1.5 million other members of the British Indian diaspora, I have been watching with my heart in my mouth,   worried for friends and families in India, over the last few weeks. May I ask the Minister to join me in putting on record our thanks to all the officials, Government Ministers and private-sector businesses that have been involved in our work not only in COVAX—I think we were the largest donor up until December last year—but with AstraZeneca, which is doing crucial work in providing vaccines to the world’s poorest, and for our deliveries of oxygen as well?

Nigel Adams: I thank my hon. Friend for her thanks in this regard. An extraordinary amount of work has been done, and not just by Government; she was right to mention the private sector, which has stepped up in this pandemic. There has been an incredible international, joined-up effort under extreme circumstances, but I want to commend the work both of the FCDO and across Government in ensuring that the initial shipment got out to India with great speed. We were the first to deliver equipment and there will be more to come. I will certainly ensure that my hon. Friend’s thanks are amplified to the relevant parties.

Tan Dhesi: At a time when India is registering the highest ever recorded cases globally of covid, we must help the Indian people in their hour of need. I have close family there and many of my Slough constituents are extremely anxious about their loved ones, terrified after seeing apocalyptic scenes of people dying on the streets for want of oxygen, a collapsing health system, and crematoriums and cemeteries being overwhelmed, with thousands of people dying every day. I am sure the Minister will join me in commending the incredible work of volunteers, including British-based charities, but, given our close historical ties, will he ensure that the UK is the No. 1 aid donor, especially of medical expertise and equipment, including ventilators and oxygen concentrators?

Nigel Adams: The hon. Member makes a good point. We are indeed committed to supporting the Government of India—as I have said on a number of occasions here, we were first out of the blocks—and I know international partners will be doing the same. There are close historical ties and family ties with India across the House, and we will ensure that we are at the forefront of that support. We are doing it, there is more to come, and there will be more information when we have concluded our conversations with the Indian Government on what will supply. The hon. Member can rest assured, and the House can rest assured, that the United Kingdom Government are doing their bit to support the Indian people.

Lindsay Hoyle: I am suspending the House for two minutes to enable the necessary arrangements to be made for the next business.
Sitting suspended.

Environment (Regulation)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Tim Farron: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish an independent regulatory body to monitor and enforce the compliance of public bodies with climate and environmental requirements and targets; to make provision for associated sanctions; to require the regulatory body to assess the environmental effects of potential trade agreements; to make provision about environmental standards, including in relation to animal welfare; and for connected purposes.
I am introducing the Bill because the UK is without meaningful environmental regulation and without any kind of independent environmental regulator. Having left the EU and having promised four years ago to introduce legislation to provide the UK with its own independent regulator, the Government continue to fail to meet that promise. Unregulated and unpoliced, our standards of biodiversity, air quality and animal welfare need to be protected or the Government will allow them to be eroded.
Politicians on all sides have a habit of saying that British farming is the best in the world. That claim happens to be true, but I fear that the Conservative Government do not understand why it is true. We can protect British farming only if we understand it. I am compelled to introduce the Bill, because the Government do not seem to understand it and do not seem to get it.
British farming is the best in the world, mainly for two fundamental reasons: standards and culture: standards, because we have led the development of the world’s most ambitious and comprehensive system of agricultural and environmental regulation alongside our partners on the continent; and culture, because the unit of farming in Britain is the family farm, which has underpinned our reputation for unrivalled care and compassion for livestock, and for a ratio of humans to animals that allows the welfare of those animals to be a priority. Furthermore, the culture of Britain’s family farms is one in which they are not just proud to produce our food but proud to be the stewards of our countryside and environment, to be on the frontline of the fight against climate change and the fight to restore nature. If we lose our world-class regulation and have no effective regulator, and if we allow family farms to be undercut and go to the wall, we fatally undermine British farming and all that is good about it. It is not acceptable for the Government to promise regulation and a regulator, and continually to break that promise, while our farmers are put under increasing pressure and our environment is put at increased risk.
That is why, along with my Liberal Democrat and Alliance colleagues, I am pushing the Bill. There is an urgent need for safeguards to be put in place. We need a regulator that is well resourced, has comprehensive and strong powers, and is completely independent of Government so that it can set and enforce regulation without fear or favour, and have the strength to hold public authorities at all levels to account. We need much more than a body that just points out where the Government are failing. We need an office that can force the Government to comply; an office that can prosecute, and can levy fines and other sanctions to prevent abuse;  a watchdog whose bite is as great as its bark. Without powerful, independent regulation or a regulator, we will begin to see more complexities in bureaucracy as food producers seek to comply with traditional, high-quality British standards but simultaneously have to operate with lower production costs as they battle to avoid being undercut by cheap imports.
A huge fear for consumers and farmers alike is that the Government will allow lower quality, cheaper imports into the UK as they seek deals with other countries to provide some compensation for the loss of nearby European markets: countries that do not take care of their animals like we do, which lack animal welfare protections and do not produce food in ways that reduce carbon emissions or take care of the natural environment. Those countries allow their producers to have lower input costs due to those lower standards. Is it right that the UK should have to see an increase in products on our supermarket shelves that have come from inhumane or environmentally irresponsible production methods? Is it right that farmers should be undercut and ruined by those cheaper and morally inferior products? The answer to those questions is absolutely no, yet the Government’s continued failure to step back and allow themselves to be regulated mean that we have no means to ensure that new trade deals do not open the door to food produced in ways that damage the environment, harm animals and put UK farmers out of business.
There is a real fear that the Government will do such deals—perhaps by accident, but quite probably by design. After all, the farming Minister wrote to Conservative MPs a few months ago telling them that if we required imports to meet the same animal welfare and environmental standards as British farmers it would make it very difficult to secure trade deals. In other words, “Please do not tie our hands, because we can only get these trade deals if you allow us to throw British farmers under the bus.” That is why my proposal for a new, powerful and independent regulator is vital to protect British standards and British farmers.
Without a regulator, we will allow the Conservative Government to continue their path of inaction on the natural environment. We see a lack of natural flood protection; loss of British biodiversity at an ever increasing rate; and the tragic, premature deaths of thousands of people every year due to air pollution. In the past five years, this Government have been told by multiple court systems that they need to do much more to tackle the toxic levels of air pollution in this country. Their 2017 national action plan on air pollution was deemed unlawful by the UK High Court, as it was simply not strong enough to enforce change among local authorities.  This year, in a case started before we left the EU, the European Court of Justice found this Government to have “systematically and persistently” breached air pollution limits. Without an independent regulator with the teeth to hold our Government to account, they will be even less accountable for their failures to tackle these ecological and human crises. The lack of action from the Conservatives should not be left to the court systems to sort out. It should be dealt with directly by an independent body, just as the Government have promised.
Our lack of environmental protections extend beyond air quality and into the quality of nature in the UK. We are already living in the most nature-depleted country on the planet. Only 14% of our waterways are in good  condition, and more than 40% of native species are in decline. This is an embarrassment for us all. We are in the run-up to COP26, and at the moment our likely message to other countries will have to be, “Do as we say but not as we do.” We cannot set a good example when the Government are threatening the livelihoods of farmers across the UK with a lack of regulation on animal welfare and other standards.
The Government are compounding that error by their stubborn and penny-pinching approach to the transition from the basic farm payment scheme to the new environmental land management scheme. The Government insist on forcing many family farms to accept a 50% cut in their income, with no immediate replacement. This plan will inevitably put hundreds of family farms out of business. This matters because without farmers we have no partners to deliver natural flood prevention schemes, to enhance biodiversity and carbon sequestration, and to maintain the stunning landscapes that underpin the tourism economy in places such as the lakes and the dales. This stubborn penny-pinching goes hand in hand with the Government’s failure to ensure a powerful independent regulator. Both those failures seem certain to contribute to undermining British farming and our natural environment, unless we act.
Today, I am giving Parliament the opportunity to act. This Bill aims to unite town and country in favour of a new deal for our environment that values British farmers and enshrines British values. How can we say that we are proud of our animal welfare standards, our environmental protections, and the quality of British farming if we then are happy to sell them out to the highest bidder with the lowest regulation? We need an environmental regulator, as the Government have promised. Given that the Government have failed to deliver that promise, I stand here to deliver it for them. For the good of our farmers and our environment, there is no more time to lose.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Tim Farron, Mr Alistair Carmichael, Wendy Chamberlain, Daisy Cooper, Ed Davey, Stephen Farry, Wera Hobhouse, Christine Jardine, Layla Moran, Sarah Olney, Jamie Stone and Munira Wilson present the Bill.
Tim Farron accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 297).

Fire Safety Bill

Consideration of Lords message

After Clause 2 - Legislative proposals relating to prohibition on passing remediation costs on to leaseholders and tenants

Christopher Pincher: I beg to move,
That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 4L.
As I have said on a number of occasions at this Dispatch Box, I want to express my sincere thanks once again to all right hon. and hon. Members for engaging in this important debate. I would like to repeat the message given by my noble Friend the building safety Minister in paying tribute to the fire and rescue services across our country, because in recent days we have seen large fires in Greater Manchester and Shropshire, and they have been dealt with in an exemplary and professional manner. This is a reminder of why we want to get this Bill on to the statute book—to help fire and rescue services do their job to ensure that buildings are properly and thoroughly assessed.
All of us in this House and in the other place agree in the strongest terms that residents have the right to be and to feel safe in their homes. This Government remain steadfast in our commitment to delivering the Grenfell Tower inquiry phase 1 report’s recommendations. The Fire Safety Bill is an important first step in our legislative programme delivering these recommendations. I cannot stress enough, as I have reiterated on a number of occasions throughout the passage of this Bill, the vital importance of this legislation and the ramifications if it fails as a result of outstanding remediation amendments, and that is why I move that this House disagrees with Lords amendment 4L.
Without the Fire Safety Bill, legal ambiguity around the fire safety order will continue. Moreover, the updating of fire risk assessments to cover structure, external walls and flat entrance doors will be ignored by a number of negligent building owners, and fire and rescue services will lack the legal certainty to support enforcement decisions. That is a matter that I know will be in the minds of Members today, as it should also be in the minds of Members of the other place.
A number of Members across the House have said to me, “Well, why not simply redraft the Bill?” That might be easier to do with other legislation that already has careful cross-referencing to other Acts and already has detailed secondary legislation to revise regulations, but not so with this small but none the less important Bill. Redrafting it, even if the amendments were not defective, so that it carefully navigates the intricate web of contract law and does not fall foul of such Acts beloved of Members of this House, including many Opposition Members, such as the Human Rights Act 1998, will take considerable time, and we do not have that time.
Following our announcement in February, I am pleased to say that hundreds of thousands of leaseholders will be protected from the cost of replacing unsafe cladding on their homes as part of our five-point plan to end the cladding scandal once and for all, improve the saleability  of properties and restore confidence in the housing market. The measures that we announced in February—including our work with the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors to reduce the need for EWS1 forms; our work with developers to put more of their own money on the table, additional to our tax and levy plans; and our work with lenders to buy into our package of measures to ensure sensible and proportionate value is re-ascribed to homes valued at zero—will allow hundreds of thousands of homes to be sold, bought or remortgaged once again. That will provide certainty to residents and lenders, boost the housing market and reinstate the value of properties. All the amendments we have received, debated and already disposed of would simply reignite uncertainty in the market and risk lenders once again turning to leaseholders saying, “Computer says no: we can’t value your property”.
I find it somewhat ironic that Members are flagging these issues in the context of trying to impede the progress of the Bill, as having an up-to-date fire and risk assessment that considers the external wall system of a building should enable an insurer to take an informed and proportionate approach to risk that considers not only the material and construction of the building but the way in which it is managed.
I agree that leaseholders need stronger avenues for redress. The draft Building Safety Bill, which has already gone through prelegislative scrutiny, will bring forward measures to do this, including making directors, as well as companies, liable for prosecution.
I agree that the industry must also play its part. As I said to my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox), who is in his place, our high-rise levy and developer tax will make sure that the developers with the broadest shoulders pay their way. I reiterate what I said to him yesterday about forfeiture, which is a draconian measure that should be used only as a last resort. We believe this matter should be considered as part of our wider programme of leasehold reform, which we have already indicated we will bring forward.
I also welcome my right hon. Friend’s suggestion, in yesterday’s speech, about the case study from Portishead in his constituency. As I agreed yesterday, I think we can make good use of this opportunity to assess in-depth lessons learned from the systems on the ground. Again, I am grateful to him for his proposals.
The safety of leaseholders and residents will be compromised if we do not ensure that this Bill is placed on the statute book by the end of this Session. We will not help leaseholders, nor will we make homes any safer, by impeding its passage.
Lords amendment 4L lacks clarity, just like the others. Just like the others, it prohibits all kinds of remediation costs from being passed on to leaseholders, which means that were there to be even minor costs as a result of wear and tear, or even where leaseholders themselves are responsible for the damage, they would not be expected to pay. I do not believe, and I do not believe this House believes, that that is a proportionate response.

Peter Bottomley: Will the Minister give way?

Christopher Pincher: I will, of course, give way to the Father of the House, as I was unable to do so yesterday due to time constraints.

Peter Bottomley: I am grateful to the Minister, and he knows I am trying to play the ball and not the person. The question is not the small amounts but the large amounts. It is estimated that the cost of remediation may go up to £15 billion. The Government are providing £5 billion, which leaves £10 billion that may fall on the shoulders of leaseholders. We are moving from a situation that might be ironic for some, to one that is irenic for more. The point of the amendment is that it needs to be met by Government, and it needs to be met in good time, or else many people will not be able to meet the demand to pay for the cost of remediation, and forfeiture will follow. That will happen in a shorter timescale than the one talked about by my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox).

Christopher Pincher: I certainly accept my hon. Friend’s assurance that he is playing the issue, as he always does, and not the man. As he rightly says, we propose to spend £5.1 billion of public money on remediating the tallest buildings, as directed by the Hackitt report and its recommendations.
We have also said that as a result of our tax on the development industry, which the Chancellor will consult on imminently, we will raise a further £2 billion. We have also said that we will introduce a tall buildings levy. Developers themselves are placing more money on the table. Taylor Wimpey has now placed a further £125 million on the table for remediation, and Persimmon £75 million. The amounts are building up. We have also suggested a very advantageous financing scheme for those buildings below 18 metres that may require some remediation.
I think all Members would agree that the taxpayer should not be paying for every cost associated with the provisions of the Fire Safety Bill, but that is the risk, because the scope of the amendments that have been tabled is far too broad to provide a sensible solution. Lords amendment 4L is also unclear on who should take responsibility for remediation works until a statutory scheme is in place to pay the costs. That would result in all types of remediation being delayed—a really unsatisfactory outcome for leaseholders. Leaseholders also will not thank us for voting through an amendment that will generate lots of litigation that they may need to pay for.
The amendment would prevent the passing on of remediation costs, but it does not define what those costs are. That is a recipe for litigation and a recipe for delay. There is a lack of clarity on the definition of remedial work and what may be attributable to the provisions in this Bill, in other Acts or in none. How would Members suggest that we disaggregate the legislation under which works are carried out and the definition to differentiate between remediation, maintenance or improvement? It is a recipe for litigation and a recipe for delay.
In effect, it may not be possible to relieve leaseholders and tenants from all costs for remedial works attributable to the Bill without breaching subsidy control rules—a form of state aid. Further detailed consideration would be needed about that, too. Practically speaking, drafting legislation is, as many Members will know, a complex matter that cannot be dealt with in the timeframe proposed by the amendment, and to provide an arbitrary deadline is neither helpful nor practical.
There is a common theme uniting these points. The amendments will not work. They will not help leaseholders. They are not detailed enough for a complex and intricate problem of this nature. We have seen the key elements of this amendment time and again, and this House has voted them down time and again. Yet time and again, peers and the Opposition—unintentionally, I trust—seem set on reinjecting uncertainty into the market, which cannot help leaseholders. I respectfully ask the House to reject this amendment, so that we return a further clear and consistent message to the other place.

Sarah Jones: The Minister has made a lengthy speech on this occasion, perhaps trying to ensure that others have less time to speak. I am glad that he took an intervention from the Father of the House on this occasion—he did not do so yesterday—but unfortunately he did not answer the main point, and therefore we must conclude that the Government are content for the £10 billion of additional cost to be shouldered by leaseholders.
We find ourselves in an extraordinary position. We voted on this only yesterday, and in that debate every single speaker—the Conservative, Labour and Lib Dem contributors—pleaded with the Government to support leaseholders. No one spoke in the Government’s favour, and the Government’s majority was halved in the vote. At what point does the Minister question the sense of his approach? At what point does he turn around and think, “Well, all these people who have spoken are sensible and well meaning; perhaps they have a point”? At what point does he consider that he might actually agree with us?
I suspect that the Minister has had those thoughts, and I suspect that he even agrees with us. He knows that the Bank of England is worried about a crash caused directly by the crisis. He knows that hundreds of thousands of people are suffering. But he also knows that his Chancellor and his Prime Minister do not care enough to act. They have other priorities—to their property and development donors. Fourteen separate companies and individuals with links to construction companies using potentially lethal aluminium composite material cladding on buildings have donated nearly £4 million to the Conservatives since 2006. The Prime Minister must have his new curtains, so they turn away from the screams for help from the people hit with extraordinary bills of £40,000, £50,000, £60,000, and the Minister has to bunker down, hold his nose and hold the line. I almost feel sorry for him.
Let me touch briefly on the arguments put forward by the Minister yesterday and today for not accepting these amendments. The argument that they would further delay the implementation of the Grenfell recommendations does not wash and is frankly insulting to the Grenfell survivors. Yesterday, the hon. Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) read out Grenfell United’s condemnation of the use and abuse of the tragedy to put the blame on leaseholders. It said that the Government’s excuse that amendments to protect leaseholders would delay Grenfell recommendations is “deeply upsetting”, “wrong”,
“and shows they’d rather protect the corporates responsible from paying for the mess they created.”
That argument against delaying the Bill was put to us time and again when we were trying to make amendments to implement the Grenfell inquiry recommendations. On Report, the Minister for Security, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire), said that accepting our amendment to implement the Grenfell inquiry phase 1 recommendations would “create uncertainty”. The Minister for Crime and Policing, the hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse), later said:
“It is not helpful, I have to say, for the House to keep returning to this issue.”—[Official Report, 24 February 2021; Vol. 689, c. 950.]
He added that it causes “confusion”. However, after continually voting against our amendments, the Government eventually gave in and made the concession in the other place. It was possible then, even after months of their saying it was not, and it is possible now.
The Housing Minister has the audacity to imply that the supposed delays from new amendments would mean that people were less safe, as if people are not already unsafe living in buildings riddled with fire safety issues. Has he forgotten that hundreds of thousands of people up and down the country are already stuck in unsafe buildings? I say to him again today: if the Government have not managed to work out how to pursue the money from those responsible, why do they not do what is right and stop leaseholders footing the bill now? Labour’s amendment would buy the Government time. It would protect leaseholders while the Government came up with a longer-term plan.
As Lord Kennedy of Southwark said yesterday in the other place, it is unusual to be here again so soon, but this is an unprecedented crisis and the Government should be taking unprecedented measures to sort it out. The Government know that hundreds of thousands of people are being forced to pay to fix fire safety issues that were not their fault. The Government should pay and then go after the building companies and developers who are responsible. Most MPs agree: 95% of all MPs, and 92% of Tory MPs, said that the developers who built the flats should pay to make them safe.
The tragedy is that we know that, at some point, the Government are going to have to act to fix this problem. We know that they cannot leave leaseholders to foot a £10 billion bill. Yet yesterday, many Conservative Members voted against an amendment that would have protected leaseholders. What will they do today? Will they keep voting against their conscience, against their opinions, against the will of their constituents, or will they do the right thing and vote to protect leaseholders?

Eleanor Laing: We have a very short time for this debate, so I am afraid that we have to have a limit of three minutes on Back-Bench speeches.

Royston Smith: First, I have agreed with pretty much everything that the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones) has said in these debates over the last few weeks, but I disagree fundamentally with her bringing into it this political trope that the reason the Government will not act is that they are all in the pocket of the developers. That does not help this debate, it does not help us move it forward, and it does not help the leaseholders to keep putting in  their minds that there is some sort of conspiracy. I agree with the hon. Lady on almost everything, but certainly not on that.
In yesterday’s debate, the Minister said—this was repeated just a few moments ago from the Dispatch Box—that
“all of us in this House agree that residents deserve to be safe, and to feel safe, in their homes.”—[Official Report, 27 April 2021; Vol. 693, c. 264.]
He is correct. We all agree on that. I think we all agree —at least, the Government, from the Prime Minister down have repeatedly said they agree—that leaseholders should not have to pay for historical fire defects.
The Minister reminded us that this Bill was introduced over a year ago. May I remind him that I and my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) tabled the “McPartland-Smith amendment” nearly five months ago? The Minister has repeatedly suggested that our amendments are defective, and he has done so again today, but in five months the Government have done nothing to take our well-intentioned amendment and incorporate it in the Bill. We have less than 48 hours until the end of this parliamentary Session. If the Government and Minister agree that innocent leaseholders should not pay, and if they are now concerned that they have run out of time, should they not have attempted a compromise in the five months since we tabled our amendment?
Noble Lords from the other place have now done the Government’s work for them. They have found a mechanism to save the Fire Safety Bill—which we all want, incidentally—and, at the same time, to insert a requirement for the Government to protect leaseholders from the crippling charges for defects that are not of their making. I cannot repeat this enough—this is not of their making. We have repeatedly asked the Government to compromise, but they have not done so. This amendment allows them to do so now, even at the eleventh hour, and finally secure the future of the Bill and protect those who have been begging the Government for help.
I will support the Lords amendment today, and I hope that the Government and my colleagues on the Government Benches will do so. If they are serious about protecting innocent leaseholders and securing the Bill, they will agree to the Lords amendment or table their own in the other place before the end of the parliamentary Session. I think everyone knows that it is time to take the compromise.

Hilary Benn: The Minister knows that this problem is not going to go away. Whether it is the Fire Safety Bill today or in the Building Safety Bill, we will keep returning to this. He knows that because what has been done so far is insufficient. He knows it because, as things stand, the length of time it is likely to take to sort this out will be too long for many leaseholders to be able to continue to bear the costs that they are paying at the moment and to contemplate the future costs that hang over them. And the Government know it because, as they said right at the beginning of this crisis—we intend to hold them to this promise—it is not right that leaseholders should be asked to bear the costs of something they were not responsible for.
I really do not understand the Minister’s argument. The uncertainty is not caused by our voting for the Lords amendments; it is the unresolved problem that is  causing huge uncertainty. As for his point about drafting complexity, he should give a commitment to go away and draft something and bring it back in the Building Safety Bill, because either his view is that it is complex and no one has drafted anything suitable yet—so go away and draft it—or it is simply a way of trying to resist the idea that leaseholders should not have to pay.
In the meantime, I have a practical suggestion to make. All those involved, including MPs, spend a lot of time going back and forth about practical problems in respect of blocks, difficulties, delays, a lack of communication and so forth. I have had to use parliamentary questions to try to find out what has been happening in respect of applications to the building safety fund for particular blocks in my constituency. I have to say, the replies I have received have been distinctly unhelpful.
A very large range of people is involved: leaseholders of course, freeholders, the fire service, managing agents, building companies, developers, chartered surveyors, local authorities, mortgage lenders, insurance companies, and the Minister’s Department. I know that Ministers and officials meet individual groups and organisations regularly, but I think there would be great merit in bringing together representatives of all these groups to establish what we can call a contact group or an action group, so that the Minister and his officials can sit around a table on a regular basis to share information about what is happening and to progress-chase, iron out problems, test out ideas and find answers to the problems for which there is as yet no plan, but which my constituents in Leeds have to live with each and every day and which weigh so heavily upon them, their lives and their sense of whether there is a future that they can look forward to, because, as things stand, there is not one. I really hope that Ministers will take up the idea and finally acknowledge that only a comprehensive plan is going to bring this nightmare to an end.

Liam Fox: Again, we all want the same thing. We want the protection of leaseholders from bills that they cannot afford and should not have been given; we want the protection of taxpayers from a burden that they should not have to carry; and we want the application of the “polluter pays” principle, so that the developers, insurers and builders who are responsible for the problems in the first place are the ones who have to pay the costs of remediation. All of that has become perfectly clear during our various debates on the matter.
I welcome what my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Royston Smith) said yesterday and today about establishing a study on the ground—similar, in some ways, to that which the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) just mentioned—that would make it possible to talk to real people about real bills, and about why the huge sum of taxpayers’ money that has been set aside is not getting through to them. What rate-limiting steps, and what problems with bureaucracy and the timescales that have been set, make it impossible for that money to get to the people who need it? I very much welcome that idea. I hope that the timescale will be short and the Minister will be able to share the lessons learned with all Members.
Today, the Minister has edged us towards the necessary compromise. If we are willing to make it clear in the Queen’s Speech that leasehold reform will deal with forfeiture, that will remove one of the biggest fears. As  the Father of the House said, what about the potential for forfeiture to occur during the time before the passing of that legislation? That does need to be dealt with. If I may say so, my hon. Friend the Minister was clearer about that today than he was yesterday, and that is hugely to be welcomed. I have always thought that the idea that we could not say what would be in the Queen’s Speech sat a bit oddly with the fact that we can read what will be in the Budget three days before it actually happens.
I also welcome what my hon. Friend the Minister said about the scope of the Building Safety Bill and the ability to set out in it the concept of apportionment, which will be a major element. I hope that if we can take these concepts forward in the other place, we might reach a solution to this problem. It seems to me that the building blocks of a solution are there.
As my hon. Friend and Members from all parts of the House have said, we all want certainty, so that lenders can lend, property values can stabilise and homeowners—the very people my party wants to encourage—can sleep soundly in their beds once again, as they have a right to do.

Tim Farron: I, too, rise to support the Lords amendment. The amendment is simple; it protects leaseholders and prevents them from being charged crippling, life-changingly colossal bills to make safe properties that are unsafe only because of the actions of developers and a lack of Government regulation.
Here we are: the Government have played to the final whistle, and they are down by the corner flag keeping ball and feigning cramp in the hope that the final whistle will go and we will all move on. Let me be clear. I assure the Minister—and, more importantly, I encourage anxious and distressed leaseholders—that we will not give up. We will not troop off the field, not to play again, once the 90 minutes are up. We will come back next Session and fight the corner of leaseholders who currently face bills that they can never, ever hope to be able to afford, and that are not theirs to pay in the first place.
As has been mentioned, the Government’s stance on this issue sets out starkly whose side they are on. They are on the side of the wealthy developers, some of whom fund their party. They are on the side of negligent officials who allowed this to happen. They are not on the side of those who are working hard to afford a roof above their heads. This is a Britain, it would appear, where innocent householders have to pay to remove dangerous cladding while somebody else pays for the Prime Minister’s new curtains. We believe in a better Britain where there is justice, not crushing, undeserved debt. If we do not win today, then, for the sake of leaseholders across this country, we will be back.

Bob Blackman: So, here we are again debating the Fire Safety Bill and the Lords amendments to it. The key issue here is not whether we enshrine in law the requirements on fire safety but who ends up paying for them. The reality is, as the Father of the House mentioned, that the £5.1 billion offered by the Government thus far will be insufficient to cover the remediation and fire safety costs identified not only in tall buildings but in lower buildings as well. The key  issue, then, is that it is going to take some five years for the work to be carried out, and that leaseholders are receiving bills now of £50,000 or more in order for the work to be carried out. They can ill afford it.
The Government are committed to producing the Building Safety Bill, but we know that it will be announced in the Queen’s Speech and that it will probably take 18 months to two years before it is live and operational. Leaseholders do not have the luxury of that time. They are being charged the money right now. We still do not know the details of the forced loan scheme that the Government are offering for leaseholders in buildings below six storeys. We have been asking to scrutinise it, so we can see whether it is fit for purpose or whether it will even work.
I have had the honour and privilege of serving on the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee for the past 11 years. We are publishing a report on cladding and the other issues tomorrow. Obviously I am not allowed to pre-disclose the details, but it is fair to say that we are critical of the way in which the Government are approaching this necessary means. I urge the Minister for Housing, who is a good friend for whom I have every respect, to let us have some commitments from the Front Bench in his answer to this debate, and to tell us what he will do to ensure that leaseholders are prevented from having to bear these unnecessary and unacceptable costs. Let us also have some commitments on when we will see the proposed forced loan scheme. Let us have some commitments on when we can expect to see the Building Safety Bill brought into operation, and some overall commitment to ensure that people living in unmortgageable, unsaleable flats are given appropriate comfort, because, frankly, without that, we will have to support the Lords amendment to ensure that the Government come back with these proposals early in the new Session.
Let us make sure that we send the message to leaseholders out there: you should not have to pay a penny piece to rectify the problems that are not your fault in the first place. I shall be supporting the Lords amendment once again today.

Barry Gardiner: This Bill has been passing backwards and forwards between the Lords and Commons because the Government will not do the right thing and protect leaseholders from the ruinous costs of replacing cladding and remediating internal fire safety defects during construction. By refusing to do so, the Government are making liars out of all the successive Ministers—and, indeed, a Prime Minister—who have told this House that leaseholders should not pay for building defects for which they are not responsible.
Today I want to focus on the impact of the EWS1 regulations and the callous way in which another operator, FirstPort, is treating vulnerable residents in Blackberry Court in my constituency. FirstPort has written to the 27 leaseholders in Blackberry Court, which is a two-storey block of flats, to advise them that the fire safety work will cost more than £20,000. It has not provided a breakdown of costs or issued a section 20 notice, as it is legally obliged to do for any work costing more than £250 per leaseholder. What is most disturbing, however, is that FirstPort has been demanding access to the roof void through the only loft hatch, which is located in the bedroom of my constituent, who is an elderly lady of  94 years of age. FirstPort would brook no objection to this until I intervened to forestall this intrusion and asked it to create new access to the roof void from the common parts of the building. But the fact that it had not yet been able to access the void to survey it means that it must already have been aware that there was no compartmentation in the roof space. Indeed, I have discovered that Blackberry Court, which was built in 2007, never got a completion certificate, despite being covered by the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005. That prompts the question of why the company had not acted on this fire safety defect before. Some may suspect that the properties were unsaleable and devalued—unless the work was done—because of the EWS1 form. The Government did change the requirements on the form, but the Minister knows that the banks and the mortgage lenders have not changed their stance, nor have the insurers.
Charitably, EWS1 forms are the Government’s attempt to force a proper assessment of fire safety defects. Less charitably, they appear to be an attempt to outsource the crucial work of assessing dangerous buildings after Grenfell Tower to an unregulated private market. Currently, there is no requirement for a surveyor to hold the minimum qualification—professional registration or certification as to their competence—and nothing to ensure a uniform approach as to how inspectors carry out checks. This means that, in some cases, different EWS1 ratings are being given for the same block.
According to Government statistics, there are around 88,000 residential buildings taller than 11 metres in England, containing 1.2 million leasehold homes. The Government have said that there are currently just 212 chartered fire engineers across the UK registered with the Institution of Fire Engineers. This means that getting an EWS1 form is nigh on impossible, and, in the meantime, leaseholders are left in economic limbo, unable to sell or to move on with their lives. My constituent, at the age 94, simply wants to live out her life in peace and safety in the flat that she bought more than a decade ago. The Government’s refusal—

Eleanor Laing: Order. I have given the hon. Gentleman considerable leeway, but he has far exceeded the time allocated, so we must now go to Sir Robert Neill.

Bob Neill: I shall be supporting Lords amendment 4L today with some regret, because I wish the Government had moved to resolve this issue since we last debated it yesterday; it is disappointing that they have not done so. I support the amendment on the basis that I want the Fire Safety Bill to proceed; I want it to be successful. The truth is that, while the fundamental elements of the Bill are worthy, it none the less has, at present, the effect of causing collateral damage to innocent leaseholders. That flies in the face of undertakings that the Government themselves have regularly given. Despite the huge sums of money that has been put in, as is already apparent, it is not enough.
In the meantime, we need to have a scheme that protects leaseholders, and it is the absence of a provision in the Bill to do that which is the problem. If Lords  amendment 4L is not satisfactory to the Government, then there is still time for them to produce their own. I very much hoped that the Government would have acted on the proposals in the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) yesterday. That still offers a way forward, but absent that, at least the current amendment from the Lords gives the means of protection in the interim.
At the present time, leaseholders in blocks, such as Northpoint in my constituency, have properties that are unmortgageable. They cannot move. They cannot raise any more money on them. They have already expended tens of thousands of pounds in costs relating to waking watch and greatly increased insurance claims. That is not satisfactory.
We need a provision that bridges the gap in getting those responsible to pay. None of us who supports this amendment wants the taxpayer to be picking up a blank cheque. We want those who are responsible, who were at fault, ultimately to pick up the tab, but it will take some time to pin the financial responsibility on those people. In the interim, we must have a means of protecting the innocent leaseholders. That bridging arrangement is something that only the Government are able to do. I would have hoped that accepting that, together with commitments to move swiftly in legislation in this Queen’s Speech, was not an unreasonable thing to do.
Having served as a Minister myself, I do not buy the proposition that it is beyond the resources of Government to swiftly produce legislation that remedies the alleged defect that the Minister sees in the current amendment and sets the Bill in good order. There is still time to do that. I beseech the Minister to reflect on this and to come back with the Government’s own proposals in the other House before the end of this Session.
Robustness is a virtue, but when it turns into obduracy it ceases to be a virtue. I do not want the Government to get themselves into that situation. There is still time, and this amendment buys them time to resolve that satisfactorily. I urge the Minister profoundly to listen to this.

Stephen Doughty: It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill). I agree wholeheartedly with what he said, and indeed with the comments made from the Front Bench by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones) and by many other Members across the House. I also support the Lords amendment, not least because of the suffering undergone by my constituents in Cardiff South and Penarth and by many others across the UK.
The Minister talked about uncertainty, but as many Members have pointed out, uncertainty is being caused by the Government’s failure to engage with reasonable proposals made from all parts of the House to provide certainty for the very leaseholders who have been affected.
The Minister’s arguments simply do not wash. Our leaseholders have been dealing with this matter for years—the anxiety, the stress and the financial pressure, not least during the covid pandemic over the past year. That has been intolerable for some of them, and I have met constituents who were crying and in a terrible state because of the situation they have been left in. I simply cannot understand the Government’s continued resistance, not least given the cross-party pressure and support.
I thank the Welsh Government—Housing Minister Julie James, my colleague Vaughan Gething and so many others—for meeting with leaseholders in my constituency. They have put pressure on developers and made a commitment to £32 million in the recent budget, and have already committed £10 million. They have an active programme on leasehold reform and, crucially, are making it clear, which the Government here seem unwilling to do, that leaseholders should not have to foot the bill for fixing these fire safety and building safety defects.
We all want the developers to pay and we all want the resources to come through, but the reality is that we all have to stand up and say clearly, once and for all, that leaseholders should not be the ones paying for the remediation. This is not their fault. I will continue to work closely on the issue with my constituency colleague Vaughan Gething, our local councillors, and a range of residents and leaseholder organisations. We are not going away. Some of the stories of how people have been affected have been told passionately today on BBC Wales—the suffering, the anxiety, the pressures.
I am yet to receive adequate response from the UK Government, who have left the Welsh Government and Welsh leaseholders in the dark on the way forward. There is no need for that unless there is something to hide. As the Minister knows, Welsh Government officials have worked constructively with his Department on the passage of the Bill, and are working on a range of issues relating to the building safety Bill, yet it took the Housing Secretary more than a month to respond to the Welsh Housing Minister on the crucial, very reasonable questions she was asking in an offer of co-operation.
I have raised this matter with the Secretary of State for Wales, the Minister and others, yet the letter that came back from the Housing Secretary over a month later said he is
“not able to confirm the details and timing of budgetary allocations to Wales”,
although he says the Barnett formula will
“apply to that funding in the usual way”.
Why can he not give a clear and unequivocal answer about the money that will be available to Wales, and how the Government will work with Welsh officials on the proposed new tax and the new building levy so that we can finally provide some assurance to leaseholders in my constituency and, crucially, across the country?

Ruth Cadbury: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) and all the Members who have spoken since the Minister sat down.
Ministers, including the Prime Minister, have said in the House and in the other place on many occasions that leaseholders would not have to pay for fire safety failures not of their making, so why do the Government still disagree with the Lords amendment? The Minister said yesterday and just now that the Government do not have time to draft appropriate amendments to the Bill in the way we seek, yet they have had seven months since Second Reading and five months since Third Reading—plenty of time to try to sort this out.
The safety scandal exposed by the Grenfell Tower fire affects up to 1.3 million flats. Current leaseholders cannot sell, and potential leaseholders cannot get new mortgages until they can prove the homes are safe. Insurance is impossible to come by. Worse, residents of those flats live with the fear of being trapped by a fire in their home. Leaseholders live with the fear of unaffordable costs for the remediation being imposed on them.
The human cost is incalculable. In my constituency alone, at the Paragon estate, built by Berkeley, about 70 homeowners, along with hundreds of assured tenants and students, were evacuated with a week’s notice and cannot return. A fire raged up the cladding of Sperry House in the middle of the Great West Quarter estate built by Barratt Homes. Leaseholders in at least 25 blocks in my constituency that were built by volume house developers face unknown costs, including for waking watch, for the replacement of flammable cladding and wooden balconies and, most expensive of all, to address the lack of fire breaks or proper compartmentalisation.
The building safety fund does not even cover the cost of cladding remediation throughout the country, let alone any of the other failures in these buildings, and it provides loans only for sub-18-metre blocks. Nor does it support housing associations with the cost of rectifying the safety failures that affect the social rented flats for which they have found themselves responsible through planning gain, so they are having to take the repair costs from the funds meant for the building of new social rented housing.
Unamended, the Bill will mean that leaseholders will be forced to pay. They should not have to pay—they did not design or build their flats and they do not own the building their flat is built in. This Parliament, with the support of this Government, could take the burden from leaseholders now, but instead we are told that we have to wait for a different Bill, the content of which is unspecified, as is its timetable. That is unacceptable.

Paul Blomfield: We have heard a lot recently about the Prime Minister’s honesty and integrity. It is important to our democracy that people can trust the word of their leaders, but this debate highlights that issue yet again. As I reminded the House yesterday, on 3 February the Prime Minister told us that
“no leaseholder should have to pay for the unaffordable costs of fixing safety defects that they did not cause and are no fault of their own.”—[Official Report, 3 February 2021; Vol. 688, c. 945.]
It was a clear statement of policy—an unambiguous pledge to those who face ruin as a result of fire defects that are the responsibility of developers. Yet the Prime Minister has consistently whipped his Members to oppose amendments to the Bill that would honour his pledge.
I have listened carefully to the justifications from Ministers for opposing the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) and by the Bishop of St Albans, and we heard them again yesterday. The Minister described the amendments as “laudable in their intentions” but
“unworkable and an inappropriate means to resolve a problem as highly complex as this.”—[Official Report, 27 April 2021; Vol. 693, c. 264-265.]
His ministerial colleague in the other place, the Minister for Building Safety and Communities, said that it was
“the Government’s view that the Bill is not the right legislation in which to deal with remediation costs.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 27 April 2021; Vol. 811, c. 2207.]
So, they are not the right amendments and it is not the right legislation.
Surely the Government should embrace the new Lords amendment, because it gives them the opportunity to draft their own proposals in separate legislation and to honour the Prime Minister’s promise to leaseholders. The Minister claimed today that it will take time; the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Royston Smith) rightly pointed out that they have had time. It has been five months since the hon. Gentleman tabled his amendment and three months since the Prime Minister’s promise: if the Minister genuinely felt that the objectives were laudable, he has had time to come up with his own proposals. Those in the Metis building, Wicker Riverside, Daisy Spring Works and other buildings throughout my constituency deserve nothing less, because they face bills of up to £50,000 each to fix the mistakes of others. Unlike the Prime Minister, they do not have access to private donors. They face bankruptcy and ruin, trapped in homes that are unsafe and unsaleable, facing unbearable pressure and unimaginable mental strain.
We have to recognise our responsibility. The leaseholders have been let down by not just the developers but a flawed system of building inspections. They are—as I know Ministers recognise—the victims of comprehensive regulatory failure. The Government have to step in, urgently fix the faults and then recover the funds from those responsible—

Eleanor Laing: Order. Again, I have allowed considerable leeway, but the hon. Gentleman has had his time. I do not understand: when people are speaking from home, can they not see the time limit? I think that might well be the case, so perhaps someone will send a message back. Here in the Chamber we can see the time limit and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I allowed him to exceed it.
I had put on a tight time limit because I had anticipated some vigorous debate and interventions; there has not been a single intervention, which leaves plenty of time for the Minister to respond to the debate.

Christopher Pincher: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for that opportunity. I am sorry that I have, unfortunately, interposed on the time that the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) might otherwise have supposed to be his own; he was making a careful and passionate speech, as have the other nine right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken from the Back Benches today. I am grateful for their insight and considered contributions. I remind them and both Houses that the Government understand the aims that underpin the objectives that have been sent to us over the last several weeks by the House of Lords.
Let me address some of the points made in the debate. My right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) made a typically powerful and helpful speech. I agree with him that we want to help people get on to the housing ladder; that is a good Conservative  principle. We also want to help them to stay on the housing ladder, which is why we brought forward a package of measures that we believe—and the lending sector tells us—will ensure that proper and sensible value can be reascribed to properties so that people can get on with their lives.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) asked a number of questions, including when the Building Safety Bill will be brought forward. My noble Friend the Building Safety Minister is working on the feedback from the pre-legislative scrutiny process, and is considering the secondary legislation that must sit alongside the primary legislation. He will bring that Bill forward as quickly as may be in the next Session. My hon. Friend also asked about the speed with which we will bring forward our tax on developers. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor will begin his consultation on that process imminently.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Royston Smith) has been an honourable and doughty campaigner in his cause over the last several months. He asked why the Government did not bring forward proposals earlier. The amendments that we received from the Lords, and indeed the amendment that for many months stood in his name, were defective. That is why we were not able to accept them and it is why we are not able to accept this particular amendment.
The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones), made a number of points. I will not dignify the slur that she made on the integrity of the Conservative party and our commitment to this cause, other than to remind her that any party that is owned lock, stock and barrel by the trade unions and that has within it such luminaries as Tony Blair and Lord Mandelson—gentlemen not unknown to the lobbying industry—should be very careful about throwing mud, because mud tends to stick on those who throw it.
One of the points that the shadow Minister made, which was also raised in the speech yesterday of my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland), concerned why the Grenfell phase 1 recommendations might be delayed if the Fire Safety Bill does not reach the statute book in this Session. I remind my hon. Friend and the shadow Minister that the Fire Safety Bill puts beyond legal doubt that the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 applies to external walls and flat entrance doors in multi-occupied residential dwellings. That certainty will enable the Secretary of State to make regulations, with reduced risk of legal challenge, to place duties on the responsible persons regarding external wall structure and flat entrance doors, as the inquiry recommended. Without this Bill on the statute book, there would be significant legal risks to the Secretary of State making such orders. It is vital that this Bill is placed on the statute book in order for us to use article 24 of the fire safety order to advance the recommendations of the Grenfell inquiry.
I want to place on record, once again, that this Government are committed to protecting leaseholders and tenants from the costs of remediation as far as possible. This democratically elected House has voted unequivocally and decisively on four occasions. Shortly, we will be asked to vote for a fifth time. I urge the House to vote to reject these Lords amendments and I urge their lordships to listen to the will of this democratically elected House.

Peter Bottomley: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Would it be within the Standing Orders of this House for the Government, if they chose to, to propose a carry-over motion, so that the Bill would not be lost as this Session comes to an end and the Government could then improve the amendment, which keeps coming back, quite rightly, from the House of Lords?

Eleanor Laing: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. As ever, his experience shows in the idea that has occurred to him. I do not know whether that idea has occurred to the Government. I do not know whether, if it has occurred to the Government, they have decided to pursue it or not. Actually, I do know that: if the idea has occurred to the Government, they have decided not to pursue it. Therefore, it is not a matter for me to decide what ought to happen, nor a matter for the Chair. It is up to the Government to decide how they take this matter past this rather difficult and unusual point, where the other place has sent a Bill back on several occasions. I expect that, like me, the hon. Gentleman eagerly anticipates the outcome of this Division and then we shall see what will happen next.
Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 4L.

The House divided: Ayes 322, Noes 256.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Lords amendment 4L disagreed to.
The list of Members currently certified as eligible for a proxy vote, and of the Members nominated as their proxy, is published at the end of today’s debates.

Eleanor Laing: As a point of clarification on the point of order raised just before the Division by the Father of the House—he will appreciate that I have now had the opportunity to consider his point more carefully—a Bill cannot, in fact, be carried over after it has been considered by the other place. I hope that that sets the mind of the Father of the House at rest about what the Government can and cannot properly do at this particular moment.
Motion made and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83H(2)), That a Committee be appointed to draw up a Reason to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their Amendment 4L.
That Christopher Pincher, Tom Pursglove, Scott Mann and Chris Elmore be members of the Committee.
That Christopher Pincher be the Chair of the Committee.
That three be the quorum of the Committee.
That the Committee do withdraw immediately.—(Alan Mak.)
Question agreed to.
Committee to withdraw immediately; reasons to be reported and communicated to the Lords.

Eleanor Laing: In order to observe social distancing, the Reasons Committee will meet not in the Reasons Room, but in Committee Room 12.

Liam Fox: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Further to a point raised at Scottish questions today, the Auditor General in Scotland has suggested that, of £9.7 billion allocated by UK taxpayers through the UK Treasury, only £7 billion had been spent on covid-related measures by the Scottish Government by the end of 2020. This is not discretionary spending that can be diverted to other causes, such as setting money aside for a referendum, but is specifically allocated to ensure that all parts of the UK are equally able to deal with the consequences of the pandemic. Given the nature and origin of this funding, can you give me any guidance as to which Committees of the House of Commons would be the most appropriate place to investigate where this money has gone?

Eleanor Laing: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. If he were seeking to further the exchanges that took place during Scottish questions, his point would not, strictly speaking, be a point of order for the Chair, but I appreciate that he is asking a serious question about a serious matter. I can point him in the direction of the Public Accounts Committee, which is concerned with the regularity of spending; the Scottish Affairs Committee, which deals with non-devolved Scottish matters; and the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, which is concerned with the operation of the devolution settlement. In pursuing the question that he raised, he might wish to take the matter up with the Chairman of one or other—or, indeed, all—of those three Select Committees.

Peter Bottomley: On a point of order, I am grateful for your clarification of the situation on the Fire Safety Bill, which is what I suspected it might be. It is obvious that the House of Commons has the opportunity of a carry-over motion only when dealing with business that is in front of it, and the other place has procedures that are similar but not exactly the same. There seems to be no precedent for what happens to a Bill that has been in both Houses, and that may be something that could properly be considered by the Speakers or the Procedure Committees of each House. In this particular case, as a carry-over motion is not possible, were the House of Lords to go on sending back helpful amendments and this Bill were to fail, if it were re-presented with the problem of the future burdens for leaseholders solved, it could pass both Houses within a day.

Eleanor Laing: The Father of the House raises a most interesting point. He is right in saying that if the Bill were now to fail, a similar Bill with similar purposes could be brought forward by the Government in the next Session of Parliament. As to whether it could pass quickly through both Houses, or either House, is, as ever, a matter for Members of this House and, indeed, of the other place. If Members choose to make very short contributions and allow a Bill to pass  through quickly, and if the Government choose to put all stages of a Bill in one day before this House and, indeed, the other place, the House of Commons as a whole and the Government could make those decisions, and it is not for me to anticipate what might happen. I thank the Father of the House for his second interesting point of order.
I am obliged to suspend the House for three minutes to allow arrangements to be made for the next item of business.
Sitting suspended.

Capital Gains Tax

Jesse Norman: I beg to move,
That the draft Double Taxation Relief (Federal Republic of Germany) Order 2021, which was laid before this House on 15 March, be approved.

Eleanor Laing: With this it will be convenient to discuss the draft Double Taxation Relief (Sweden) Order 2021, which was laid before this House on 15 March.

Jesse Norman: Both orders insert important provisions recommended by the OECD’s and G20’s base erosion and profit shifting project—BEPS—into existing double taxation agreements. For those Members who may, surprisingly, be unfamiliar with the BEPS project, it was an international effort to equip countries with the right domestic and international regulations to tackle tax avoidance. The BEPS provisions ensure that double taxation agreements fulfil their main purpose of facilitating global trade and investment. In addition, the provisions simultaneously limit the opportunity for the agreements to be used for tax evasion or avoidance.
Usually improvements to our bilateral double taxation agreements recommended by the BEPS project are made under a treaty commonly referred to as the multilateral instrument, which makes it possible to modify double taxation agreements in line with BEPS project provisions without the need for bilateral renegotiation. However, the domestic legal systems of both Germany and Sweden mean that it is much simpler for these countries to modify their double taxation agreements through amending protocols rather than through a multilateral treaty. As a result, the UK Government have agreed with both Germany and Sweden to implement these modifications through the protocols attached to these orders. These changes included introducing minimum standards to prevent avoidance through the abuse of tax treaties and improving the resolution of disputes.
The protocols with both Germany and Sweden give effect to the minimum standard on preventing treaty abuse. This is achieved by inserting a general anti-treaty abuse rule known as the principal purpose test into the double taxation agreement. Both protocols also changed the preamble of each double taxation agreement, which sets out its overriding purpose in order to clarify that the parties do not intend for the agreement to be used to avoid tax. The orders also make changes to the articles in both double taxation agreements that govern how disputes are avoided and resolved. These amendments ensure that the articles are in line with the minimum standard on improving dispute resolution. However, the Germany protocol implements a rule to prevent the artificial fragmentation of activities that might result in an overseas business avoiding a taxable presence. Sweden is not in favour of this provision, which is why it is absent from that protocol.
These orders make good on the Government’s international commitments to tackle tax avoidance and evasion and to improve dispute resolution. They strengthen the integrity of the UK’s network of double taxation agreements, which plays such an important part in  facilitating the cross-border trade and investment that benefits all our nations. I commend the orders to the House.

James Murray: I am grateful for the opportunity to respond on behalf of the Opposition to the motion concerning these two statutory instruments.
The two orders bring into effect arrangements between the United Kingdom and Germany and Sweden, respectively, as set out in the bilateral protocol signed earlier this year. Both protocols amend existing arrangements between the two relevant Governments for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with regard to taxes on income and capital gains. We will not oppose the Government on this motion. The protocols that the motion seeks to bring in would give effect to certain provisions recommended by the base erosion and profit shifting, or BEPS, project to protect tax treaties against avoidance activities. As the Minister will know, we welcome any provisions to combat tax avoidance and evasion. However, I would appreciate his addressing in his response some important questions and concerns about how the changes are being introduced and their wider context.
First, the total parliamentary scrutiny of these changes comprises the current debate, which has three speakers and is unlikely to last more than half an hour. This differs greatly from the standard practice in other countries. In the United States, for instance, tax treaties must be considered by a fully staffed congressional committee. That raises an important question about transparency and accountability as we find parliamentary scrutiny lacking. Perhaps, however, we should not be surprised by this Government seeking to avoid scrutiny. Just last week, the Government voted down a Labour amendment to scrutinise the impact of their policies on tax avoidance and evasion. That sense of a lack of transparency is compounded by the fact that the explanatory notes on the orders simply paraphrase the treaty changes in largely technical language and, therefore, do little to elucidate the matter for a wider audience.
Inaccessible explanations are an obstacle to full, open accountability. The explanatory notes explain that the protocols will have
“no, or no significant, impact on business, charities or voluntary bodies.”
Will the Minister explain what that implies about the revenue implications of the protocols being enacted?
Finally, as these orders relate to international tax avoidance and evasion, will the Minister further clarify, for the avoidance of any doubt, whether the Chancellor backs plans for a global minimum corporate tax rate, as proposed by the US President. The Financial Secretary may recall that I asked him this question in Committee of the whole House on the Finance Bill last week. He said that the Government
“welcome the renewed commitment that the US Administration have made in this area”.—[Official Report, 20 April 2021; Vol. 692, c. 914.]
That was not quite a yes to a global minimum corporate tax rate, so again I put a very simple question to the Minister: does the Chancellor back the plans proposed by the US President?

Kirsty Blackman: This is the first time I have stood to speak in the House since January 2020. During the past year and a bit, like so many of our constituents, I have been battling with the black dog of depression. I know that so many people have, and I crave your indulgence for a small moment, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Please, if you know somebody who has not been themselves recently, reach out to them, ask them if they are okay, let them know it is okay not to be okay. Offer them help but, most importantly, let them know that you are there when they are ready to talk, or if they are ready to talk. It is hugely important that all our constituents understand they are not battling this alone. There are so many of us.
I have a few questions on these two orders, and I am delighted that somebody else, the hon. Member for Ealing North (James Murray), has criticisms of the explanatory notes. I have got on my high horse about this. Do not worry, I could talk for 30 minutes—we could be here for far longer than that—but I promise I will not.
The explanatory notes are generally not very good. They do not give us enough information, and the specific issue of significant impact is a concern. The rules on explanatory notes in the “Ministerial Code” state what “no significant impact” means, but I would consider these orders to have a significant impact. The definition in the “Ministerial Code” needs to be broadened and, in general, explanatory notes for all Bills need to be better at explaining. We also need more impact assessments to be provided with Bills, because we need to know the impact on the public sector and the private sector, and on charitable organisations. The definition needs to be much wider than if a measure meets a certain threshold of millions.
The SNP supports these orders, and we look forward to the UK working more closely with other EU partners, including, in the future, an independent Scotland. On the tax evasion issues that may occur as a result, the UK, even though it has the treaty general anti-avoidance rules, still does not have a comprehensive general anti-avoidance rule for taxation. The SNP has stood on that platform, talking about it on a huge number of occasions, and it is unfortunate that the Government have not yet been willing to come forward with comprehensive regulation, particularly when HMRC is saying there was a tax gap in 2018-19 of £35 billion, which is 5.6% of the total tax liability. We need to have that rule.
The shadow Minister spoke about minimum corporate tax levels and the Biden plan. It is important that the UK Government, instead of attempting to water down these proposals, stand with them, support the need for a minimum corporate tax level and, for once, stand to strengthen international tax law rather than to weaken it. The UK Government have not, in many recent years, taken the lead on this. If we are to be this wonderful, independent nation that the Conservatives suggest that we are, it is right that we should take the lead on tax measures and say absolutely that we support the minimum corporate tax level and that we are backing it to ensure a better, more level playing field internationally.

Eleanor Laing: I am sure the whole House will have heard what the hon. Lady said. She is courageous to give her advice here in the Chamber, and people would do well to listen to her advice. We are glad to see her back.

Jesse Norman: I very much thank the two hon. Members who have spoken in the debate. May I start, Madam Deputy Speaker, by associating myself very much with the remarks that you made to the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman)? I think it is absolutely in order and right for her to bring this very important issue back to the House. To do so in such a personal way only gives it additional force. I doubt that there is a Member of this House whose own life has not been affected in one way or another by the concerns that she describes—the black dog of depression or whatever it may be—either personally or among their family or friends. The diversity of opinion in this House is something we all welcome, but so too should there be diversity in our recognition of other people and their feelings and suffering, so I very much thank her for that.
The hon. Lady raised a question that the hon. Member for Ealing North (James Murray) also raised about explanatory notes. Both Members will have seen that, actually, both these measures have quite full explanatory memorandums associated with them. Of course, there is always a balance to be struck between the depth and detail into which an explanatory memorandum goes and the desire not to provide so much detail that it becomes illegible or incomprehensible to a normal reader. I think the point is constantly right to be borne in mind that we should be as clear and explicit as possible on these matters. The point is very well made. It is a point that we have pushed very hard, and certainly I and colleagues have pushed very hard with Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs in the work that it does more widely on guidance. In this case, because these measures sit alongside a host of other instruments, including the multilateral instrument, which was debated in the House, it is certainly true that there is a degree of scrutiny and awareness—or there could be a degree of scrutiny and awareness—associated with them.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen North also mentioned the question of a general anti-avoidance rule. I am sure she knows that it has been an important feature of our approach to double taxation agreements that we have included a principal purpose test in tax treaties, either through bilateral negotiation or through the multilateral instrument. That itself is a very important, wide anti-abuse measure, developed through the BEPS project, which protects a treaty against the abuse of its provisions. We are deploying it widely across double taxation agreements, and it has much of the force of the measure that she describes.
The hon. Member for Ealing North raised the wider question of scrutiny. If I may say so, the argument would have more force if any other Opposition Members had chosen to speak in this debate and to exercise that scrutiny. I think that in general, these matters, for the reasons I have described, are tolerably well understood. We have a multilateral instrument, the measures follow a common format, and opportunity is given to Members across the House, including from the Opposition parties, to offer scrutiny. They can choose to exercise that or not.
In relation to revenue, the hon. Gentleman will see that the explanatory notes say that there are no new tax burdens imposed by these measures. In a way, that is as it should be, because their purpose is to secure and safeguard trade and to prevent abuse; they are not, in and of themselves, tax revenue-raising measures.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked about the global minimum tax rate and whether I would expand on my remarks in Committee of the whole House. I am not going to do that, because I do not think it is appropriate for Ministers to comment on tax policy in flight, as it were. We have said we very much welcome the proactive stance that the Biden Administration are taking towards this issue. We have been a very strong advocate for these wider measures—the two pillars, pillar one and pillar two—in the OECD and the G20. I know the Chancellor feels strongly about the importance of our leadership of the G7 as a way of consolidating this progress in tax.

Kirsty Blackman: Will the Minister give way?

Jesse Norman: I am just winding up. If the hon. Lady does not mind, I will finish up. We will therefore continue to press forward on this issue.
Question put and agreed to.

Capital Gains Tax

Resolved,
That the draft Double Taxation Relief (Sweden) Order 2021, which was laid before this House on 15 March, be approved.—(Jesse Norman.)

Eleanor Laing: I will very briefly suspend the House, for two minutes, in order that arrangements can be made for the next item of business.
Sitting suspended.

Insolvency

Paul Scully: I beg to move,
That the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (Coronavirus) (Extension of the Relevant Period) Regulations 2021 (S.I., 2021, No. 375), dated 22 March 2021, a copy of which was laid before this House on 24 March, be approved.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Madam Deputy Speaker, as we discuss this important extension on the Floor of the House. It is now more than a year since the emergence of covid-19, and the Government have consistently taken the swift action needed to save lives and mitigate damage to the economy. The Government’s successful roll-out of the vaccine programme and the implementation of the Government’s four-step road map out of lockdown are both reasons for cautious optimism that we will soon enjoy a return to normality. To date, in excess of 33 million people have had a vaccination, and the British public have risen to the challenge of suppressing the spread of the virus by sticking to the rules, getting tested when necessary and following the guidance on hands, face, space and letting fresh air in.
We are not out of the woods yet, however, and the emergence of new strains of the virus means that this is not the time to become complacent. Social distancing measures introduced to limit the spread of the virus and help to save lives continue to have an effect on business, and the Government recognise that. Although most businesses have been able to reopen, many continue to face uncertainty and financial difficulties. Therefore, an extension is needed to the duration of the temporary insolvency measures currently in place for the protection they provide.
These regulations extend until 30 June the suspension of serving statutory demands and the restriction of filing petitions to wind up companies; the small supplier exemption and termination clause provisions; and the suspension of wrongful trading liability. In addition, the modifications to the moratorium provisions and the temporary moratorium rules are extended until 30 September 2021.
I hope the House will agree that these regulations are necessary, but I assure Members that we will keep them under constant review. I commend these regulations to the House.

Lucy Powell: Well, here we are again. The Minister and his officials, who have heard me make the same speech numerous times, are in for a little treat today, because I am going to detour slightly from my usual remarks, which have centred a bit around “I told you so” on extending these provisions. Today I also want to touch on some of the wider insolvency framework issues that I think are pertinent now.
I welcome the Government’s extending the safety net for businesses in distress because of the pandemic. As I said when we supported the emergency legislation last year, we welcome any measures that support businesses that close to keep us safe. We argued then that the  protections in the 2020 Act should be extended over a longer period of time. I think this is now the third time—possibly the fourth time—that we have come together to extend them, on each occasion, unfortunately, causing real uncertainty and worry for businesses in the run-up to each previous expiry date.
As the economy reopens and restrictions ease, it is right that these measures are kept under review. Through the crisis, we have called on Ministers to ensure that economic support matches the public health measures in place. While we have seen welcome support for workers through the furlough, there have still been gaps in Government support that they have repeatedly failed to address. There is a cash crisis facing firms with high ongoing overheads but still no income coming in and those excluded from all Government support, and little or no help for those sectors still closed and likely to be closed or uncertain for some time, such as travel, large events and weddings, and the visitor economy.
As I have said before, we are very concerned about the levels of debt facing businesses, whether that is through the loans they have taken, the VAT they have deferred or the rent holiday they have had, but soon have to start repaying. These measures are welcome in staving off creditors, but they just kick the can down the road, and do little to change the fundamentals facing so many firms of large covid debt and low or no takings while the fight against covid continues. The bombshell that businesses face remains real, and that is why Labour has argued for a student loan-style scheme, in which covid debt can be repaid as businesses grow, so that we do not see waves of insolvencies. There is nothing in the provisions today to deal with those fundamentals.
Turning to the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act provisions in general, it is clear that some of the issues we have warned about are coming home to roost, particularly when we look at the impact of Greensill Capital’s administration on the Gupta Family Group and Liberty Steel. The Government have consistently ducked the need for wider reform of our insolvency laws, particularly in providing greater protection and support for key industries and their workers. We argued for and sought to amend the legislation to this effect, and it is not too late for the Government to act.
It is clear from reports that the gulls are circling, and regardless of whatever judgment people make about GFG, the Liberty Steel plants are a critical asset to our economic and national security, and employ thousands of highly skilled workers directly and through the supply chain. The company must be given time to refinance, but if that is not successful, then the Government must keep every option open and have a plan for all eventualities to save the UK steelmaking capacity and its supply chain. However, our insolvency laws mean that there is no safe place to refinance or protect this company’s assets until it might be too late, all the while leaving the company searching for refinancing while trying to retain the confidence of suppliers and customers, who risk the most should it fail.
In the US, they have chapter 11 to shepherd important industries facing distress. There, the authorities are able to wrap their arms around strategically important companies to allow them time to resolve difficulties, refinance or restructure. The chapter 11 process, should we have that here, would have created a better context for the refinancing of Liberty Steel, without the spotlight  and falling confidence. We argued for its inclusion in the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020. Ministers could have brought forward changes on that today, but unfortunately they seem content to let the company fail first. We know that this has a high cost for the suppliers as well.
Even without changes to the insolvency laws, if there is a political will, there could be a way. Ministers should not be bystanders. They should intervene early, before liquidation if necessary, and that would mean that workers would not lose their accrued services benefit as well as protecting the supply chain. When the Minister gets to his feet, I hope that he will reflect on the wider point about how we can protect nationally important businesses in future and assure us that his Government will do whatever it takes to save Liberty Steel from insolvency.

Andrea Leadsom: First, I commend the Government on the UK Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 and for putting in place, at such speed, both temporary and permanent measures at such a deeply troubling time for businesses. My hon. Friend the Minister will be pleased, as I am, and possibly a bit surprised, as I am, to see that statistics from the Insolvency Service show that the number of registered company insolvencies in March 2021 was 20% lower than in the same month in 2020 and 37% lower than in March 2019. I certainly know of many businesses in my constituency that have survived the pandemic thanks only to the extraordinary measures put in place by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and the Treasury to help them get through.
In the call for evidence that is outstanding on the performance of CIGA, it will be interesting to see whether feedback from businesses suggests that they needed the temporary measures or the financial support, or both, and to what extent. Certainly, the evidence points to the fact that schemes such as bounce back loans, the coronavirus business interruption loan scheme and furloughing have done a critical job in protecting lives and livelihoods. There may be the need in the future for further flexibility and, I point out to the Minister, interest on coronavirus business interruption loans and potentially more support for weddings and events organisations may well be needed in future to protect them.
I briefly wanted to mention the bigger picture. The Minister will be only too aware that insolvency legislation is not like the proverbial London bus—we do not have none coming along for years and then lots all at once—so I worry that while there have been some good, permanent changes to the insolvency rules brought in with CIGA, there are nevertheless some areas, particularly of corporate governance, where, during my time in BEIS, I was keen to see real reform. I hope that the audit reform work that is under way and the forthcoming employment rights Bill might offer vehicles for wider corporate governance changes. In particular, I would be keen to have an update from the Minister on what is still being done at BEIS to consider some specific issues, such as the roles and responsibilities of directors, the speed of insolvency evaluations post-fact and consideration of the responsibilities of board directors. We have seen some major corporate failures in recent years, including companies such as BHS, Carillion and Thomas Cook,  and very legitimate questions have been asked about the performance of the directors of those businesses, whose failures have had such a disastrous impact on lives and livelihoods.
There is also the very real question of whether companies should do more through new statutory responsibilities to protect employees’ pensions, to ensure diversity of the workforce and, of course, importantly, to address their carbon footprint. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure me that these issues remain very live in his Department, and I would be keen to know, specifically, if he can point me to forthcoming opportunities to press these matters further.
In conclusion, I encourage all those who have an interest in the broader issue of corporate governance to take part in the current call for evidence on insolvency rules. It is a great opportunity for business owners and industry professionals to give their feedback on these two important areas. I hope that the imperative of putting in place excellent temporary measures to help businesses survive during the pandemic does not get in the way of consideration of the bigger picture of good corporate governance.

Kirsty Blackman: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom). To pick up her comments, it is incredibly important that we look at the future of corporate governance and audit. We must make sure that the report is looked at carefully so that decisions are made to ensure not just that investors can scrutinise those organisations but that consumers can do so and work out whether or not they want to be involved in them on the basis of their annual report and audit. People would get a better idea of the risk they would be under if those processes were more open and transparent. I therefore agree wholeheartedly with the comments made by the right hon. Lady.
On the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020, there is an extension for some of its provisions to the end of June this year, and an extension to September for other provisions. I am concerned that there have been so many extensions—30 June is very soon—that the Government will end up having to come back with another extension. Even if the pathway that has been laid out by the Prime Minister comes to fruition, and even if we end up with pretty much everything going back to normal in some ways by the end of June—I doubt that we will, by the way—it will not be a five-minute job for businesses to recover. They will not be back on their feet immediately; they will not suddenly make up the money that they have spent, or pay back the loans that they have had to take out during this period. They will not even be able to take back all their employees full time if social distancing continues, for example. I am concerned that there is not enough time, and if the Government intend to make a further extension, it would be useful for those organisations to be aware that that extension is likely. I would prefer such an extension to have been made already, but an extension to September for all the measures would have been slightly more helpful.
We have spoken about the impact on companies, but insolvency also has an impact on the supply chain. In particular, self-employed individuals have been missed out of the furlough scheme, and if some of those  organisations go under, they are more likely than others to be hit as a result of their being part of that supply chain and their role in supporting those businesses. We are looking at the big picture, which is great, but I am concerned that there is not enough focus on the knock-on impact, particularly on those groups that have been missed out and have been hit particularly hard by the pandemic.
I am a representative for Aberdeen, and we have had a triple whammy of Brexit, covid and the reduction in oil prices in recent times. That affects not just the big companies making megabucks profits in the oil industry, but the smaller companies that are producing tech for renewables as well as tech for oil and gas extraction. We do not want to lose that intellectual property—that tech—in renewables, and we must ensure that support continues to be available, so that if big organisations fail, despite what the Government have put in, smaller companies can keep going if they have the potential to become profitable in future.
It would be useful if the Minister reassured me that the Government are not just looking at the big picture but paying attention to the smaller organisations that may not be covered by the measure, particularly in the light of the concerns that we have expressed on numerous occasions about self-employed individuals being missed out from the furlough schemes. We are concerned that they may be missed out when we look at the future of this as well.

Bill Esterson: As the Minister said, we are not out of the woods yet. There is a very long way to go, and it is right that we protect businesses that would be viable were it not for the pandemic and the resulting loss of revenue. These regulations play their part, but as the long-term impact of these challenges begin to make themselves known, it is clear that these measures are only part of the answer.
There are significant question marks over how the Government plan to support businesses in the long term. For example, in the absence of an impact assessment, it is unclear which businesses are benefiting from the exemption on the rules about wrongful trading. What contribution does the Minister believe the regulations have made in enabling businesses to recover? After the imminent end of the lockdown restrictions, businesses will continue to need support to recover, and it would be helpful to understand whether these regulations have worked up to now and what the likely impact of their removal will be.
Three million is the estimated number of individuals in business who have been wholly or partly excluded from financial support by this Government over the past year. That includes around 2 million owner-managers, also known as the ForgottenLtd, as well as the self-employed, freelancers, women who became pregnant and people who changed jobs at the wrong time. Let us remember that half of the excluded groups have not even been able to claim universal credit.
Similarly, we need to know the impact on businesses repaying the emergency coronavirus loans—CBILS, coronavirus large business interruption loans and bounce back loans. As we head closer to the end of the lockdown  cliff edge, those businesses that took out loans and have been unable to trade will need to know what the implications are for them, their staff and, indeed, the economy as a whole. Let us not forget the 7.5 million employees of the ForgottenLtd, who will need to know what will happen to them, their jobs and the companies they work for when the loans have to be repaid.
Before the Minister says that the ForgottenLtd owner-managers took out loans and therefore had support, he should note that those loans were for their business costs, including for rates and for energy or electricity for equipment. Many owner-managers have been unable to pay themselves through furlough as they are paid dividends. Unless businesses have time to rebuild their profitability, they will simply be unable to restart because of the deferred business rates, corporate and personal taxes and covid loans.
There is a real problem of massive potential unemployment and business closure unless the end of the regulations is not just the start of financial problems induced by forced repayment—repayment that is simply not possible without sufficient income having first been re-established. According to the Government’s own Business Banking Resolution Service, nearly half of small businesses that have taken out emergency coronavirus loans do not intend to repay them, not because they do not want to but because they will not be able to do so. Are company owners right to be concerned that the end of the regulations will mean that business are forced to close because of an inability to pay mounting debts and the associated legal problems of trading insolvently?
The Government declined to support the excluded groups, but it was not because of a lack of money. Billions of pounds were available for friends of the Health and Social Care Secretary, for the International Trade Secretary’s adviser and for £7,000-a-day consultants to a centralised contact tracing system that still does not work, and having the Chancellor or the Prime Minister’s phone number meant paydays for moguls in the realm of millions of pounds. Will money now be available so that businesses can start the process of recovery, their staff can keep their jobs after furlough ends, and debt repayments can be delayed until they can be afforded? Will the Government adopt Labour’s suggestion of allowing businesses to wait to repay loans until they are making enough money to do so, in a way similar to that adopted for the repayment of student loans?
More than 1 million small businesses do not expect to recover from this pandemic, which is why we need to know where the regulations fit into the strategy for economic recovery. Millions of microbusinesses and owners of small and medium-sized business are trying to figure out how they are going to put food on the table and pay their workers. More needs to be done to give businesses stability and security than just extending the existing provisions again and again. That means looking at proper business support and enabling smaller firms, microbusinesses, sole traders and self-employed workers—all of them—direct access to Government contracts. That is how the US Small Business Administration operates. Why not do the same in the United Kingdom?
Does the Minister share my concern that, through David Cameron’s access to the Chancellor, Lex Greensill made so much progress in proposing invoice factoring in the public sector? The public sector is supposed to follow the prompt payment code. Why were Ministers  and officials even considering invoice factoring? Will the Government use the recovery from the crisis as a reason to revisit the prompt payment code’s effectiveness, and particularly to ensure that smaller firms and microbusinesses are paid in 30 days? Direct procurement and payment in 30 days for small and microbusinesses are just two ways in which firms can be supported, alongside a delay in debt repayment. I hope the Minister will respond to those suggestions. I also hope he will empower the Small Business Commissioner with the proper resources to insist on prompt payment, including in the public sector.
The Minister could do worse than look at the United States, where they know the value of small businesses to the economy. The US Federal Reserve bank found that 30% of small businesses in the US—that is 9 million of them—did not expect to survive 2021 without assistance, which is why the US Small Business Administration has been tasked with supporting small businesses to build back better, alongside President Biden’s American Rescue Plan Act. In the UK, more than 1 million small businesses face similar concerns. Would it not be great if the UK had a small business administration to look after microbusinesses, the self-employed and SMEs? As the Minister should know, it is vital to distinguish between those fundamentally different types of business. The US Small Business Administration shows clear intent to support smaller businesses as part of a concerted and thought-out plan for the long term, not just a quick fix.
The excluded groups, the ForgottenLtd owner-managers, microbusinesses, sole traders and partnership businesses can all be viable again, but they need a plan that goes beyond the end of measures such as the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020. The failure to plan will lead to disaster for millions of people and just add to the significant problems that we have already seen as we come out of the crisis and into recovery.

Paul Scully: I thank Members for their valuable contributions to this debate—and, indeed, to the other, general debate I seem to have been hearing about coronavirus support beyond the regulations. Members have highlighted the importance of the measures that the regulations extend and the necessity of extending them so that businesses can continue to benefit from them.
I welcome the return to working with the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell). We are in a grander setting than usual, but the conversation remains. I understand her concern about the fact that we have come back to extend these regulations, but it is important to remember that they contain some important powers on things such as wrongful trading and the moratorium, and that we are holding a lot of things in stasis. It is right that we get the balance right between giving businesses the certainty that she rightly asks for and using Government interventions in these matters sparingly and continuing to scrutinise them in this place. I would rather that we come back and do our work regularly than overstep in respect of these powers and intervene too much in the economy. It is important to keep an eye on these things.
The hon. Lady raised the issue of those businesses that have been excluded, or that have been coming back with requests for more support, including the travel sector, the wedding sector and the visitor economy  as well. They are all hugely important businesses and sectors that are vital for our recovery. We are working on all those areas. We have the global travel taskforce. My colleagues in the Department for Transport are working on international travel. I am working with colleagues on weddings. The Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire (Nigel Huddleston), is working on events and domestic tourism. All of these areas will be hugely important not just for the economy as a whole, but to get our towns and cities back open again. As Minister for London, that is something that I feel and see on a day-to-day basis.
The hon. Lady talked about Greensill and Liberty. Clearly, there are concerns here that need to be addressed, but, obviously, speculation about Liberty Steel and other businesses can in itself cause uncertainty to investors, employees, and people seeking to work with those companies. We are monitoring the situation. We are engaging with Liberty Steel, and we are engaging with the unions. I know that the owners of Liberty Steel are seeking a market solution, but we will continue to monitor that situation. We are also engaging with the sector, with trade unions and with the devolved Administrations to make sure that we can develop a long-term, sustainable future for the UK steel industry, because it clearly has an incredibly important role in the UK.
I say to my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom), erstwhile Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, that we want to make sure that, within our Department, we are building on her excellent work in the areas of audit reform and corporate governance. She rightly pointed out some significant failures, including BHS and Carillion to name just two, and we want to make sure that we can work on that within our audit reform work. We have already published a consultation to enhance the UK’s audit control and regulation, and we will make sure that we have full debates in this place as we bring those proposals forward for scrutiny in Parliament and in terms of legislation.
Let me turn now to the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman). I would like to pass on my thanks to others who noted her comments on depression in a previous debate. It is so, so important to speak out. I really welcome her personalised appeal to people, making sure that they know that it is okay not to be okay. They were wise words, and words that we must all take on board. There has been a mental health aspect to the lockdown. Obviously, business uncertainty plays a part. There are lots of businesses, small and large, that I see and hear from on a day-to-day basis, which are incredibly stressed and incredibly worried. I valued her words.
The hon. Lady talked about companies struggling to get back on their feet. Clearly, that is the case. I do not want to get into a wider debate about coronavirus support, but we realise that, with many of these measures, there is the risk of cliff edges, and we will continue to work through those and to flex to make sure that we can support businesses. She talked about smaller organisations as well, especially around tech and IP. Yes, we must make sure that we are working on those, too.
Over the past year, businesses have faced an exceptionally challenging time, with many unable to trade, or their ability to trade at full capacity restricted owing to social distancing measures. These regulations will provide the much needed support for businesses as we continue  with the Government’s four-step road map out of lockdown, allowing them to concentrate their best efforts on reopening or continuing to trade and building on the foundations for economic recovery in the UK. We want to get to that economic recovery.
Finally, let me answer the hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson). When he was looking to throw this open to a wider debate, I think he missed the strengthening of our prompt payment code, which was done in consultation with the signatories to the payment code, and indeed the fact that we have got more to sign up to that as well. When he was looking for a wider debate about coronavirus, he also missed the plan for growth, which does exactly what it says on the tin. It looks beyond these measures. It is a plan and, funnily enough, it is a plan for growth, which goes beyond 30 June. Careful consideration has been given to extending these temporary measures, and the Government will continue to monitor the situation closely.
I thank hon. Members for their valuable contributions to the debate. I commend the regulations to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (Coronavirus) (Extension of the Relevant Period) Regulations 2021 (S.I., 2021, No. 375), dated 22 March 2021, a copy of which was laid before this House on 24 March, be approved.

Lucy Powell: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. During Prime Minister’s questions today, the Prime Minister claimed that
“last night our friends in the European Union voted to approve our Brexit deal, which he opposed.”
That is totally incorrect. You will remember, Madam Deputy Speaker, that in an extraordinary sitting of this House of Commons on 30 December 2020, the Leader of the Opposition and the whole Labour party voted for the Brexit deal agreed by the Government and the EU. As limited as it was, we backed it and avoided a no-deal scenario. Do you agree, Madam Deputy Speaker, that it is vital that the Prime Minister returns to the House today to swiftly correct the record?

Rosie Winterton: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order. I hope she will appreciate that it is not really a point of order for me, but I am sure that the Treasury Bench will have heard what she has said and will report it back in the usual way, through the usual channels. The hon. Lady has obviously also placed it on the record by raising the point of order in the way that she has.
We will have a short two-minute suspension for cleaning before the next business.
Sitting suspended.

Business of the House (Today)

Ordered,
That, at this day’s sitting, the Speaker shall put the Question on the motion in the name of Keir Starmer relating to the Immigration (Guidance on Detention of Vulnerable Persons) Regulations (SI, 2021, No. 184) not later than 90 minutes after the commencement of proceedings on the motion for this Order; the business on that motion may be proceeded with at any hour, though opposed; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.—(Scott Mann.)

Immigration

Holly Lynch: I beg to move,
That the Immigration (Guidance on Detention of Vulnerable Persons) Regulations 2021 (S.I., 2021, No. 184), dated 23 February 2021, a copy of which was laid before this House on 25 February 2021, be revoked.
On behalf of my party, let me say that it is entirely right that we have the opportunity to debate in the House of Commons the incredibly serious changes proposed in this motion. Quite frankly, it is remarkable that the Government sought to introduce these changes as a negative statutory instrument—through the back door without any opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny at all.
This statutory instrument will remove protections in the Modern Slavery Act 2015 that sought to prevent potential victims of trafficking from being held unnecessarily in immigration detention. The changes are due to come into effect on 25 May, following an extremely limited consultation with a select few groups, which had just two weeks to respond.
The consultation, which did not seek to engage with any trafficking survivor groups, was described as “poor practice” by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Given that the changes are being made alongside those outlined in the Government’s new plan for immigration, published last month, we are gravely concerned by the Government’s desire to erode the rights and protections for victims of some of the most heinous examples of exploitation.
To be clear, the proposals will amend the adults at risk in immigration detention statutory guidance by removing paragraph 18 on trafficking cases. That means that, from 25 May, decisions about the detention of potential victims of human trafficking will be made without reference to the Modern Slavery Act 2015 guidance, which made it clear that potential victims of trafficking are automatically considered unsuitable for detention unless there are public order reasons that militate against that. As a result, a decision will now be assessed within the much broader adults at risk framework, which considers a range of vulnerabilities, with the latest figure suggesting that about 39% of those detained in immigration detention are considered adults at risk.
A range of immigration factors is considered as part of the decision-making process and those factors go far wider than public order. They can include a history of offending, but additionally whether the person’s immigration history includes having entered the country irregularly, not having claimed asylum immediately, or having failed to comply with Home Office reporting requirements.
Often, having been a victim of trafficking leaves such individuals unable to satisfy those requirements. Being subject to coercive control commonly results in an individual entering the country outside approved routes or being unable to claim asylum immediately. Furthermore, to benefit from a stronger protection against detention once brought under the adults at risk guidance, potential victims of trafficking with a positive initial reasonable-grounds decision will now need to provide additional professional evidence demonstrating not only that they are an adult at risk, but that detention is likely to cause them harm. Therefore, the primary impact of the changes will be that potential victims of trafficking are detained,  and detained for longer. That is the view not only of the Opposition and various specialist stakeholders, but of the Government.
In response to concerns raised, the Home Office admitted that some individuals might, as a result of the changes, be more likely to be detained or have their detention continued. Why, therefore, do the Government continue to press ahead when they are well aware of the damage and distress that will cause, particularly considering that they seek to deliver the changes through a statutory instrument considered under the negative procedure—deeming them unworthy of debate and scrutiny?
I thank the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller), who secured a Westminster Hall debate on this very issue just yesterday. That demonstrates that there are serious concerns about the proposals across the House. I listened carefully to the Minister’s response to the debate, and it seems that the Government seek to justify the changes by saying that a similar protection will be provided through casework guidance and training, which we have not yet seen and can only trust will be published in due course.
We also expect that changes will be made to the caseworker guidance, such as the increase in requirements for medical evidence, which will further weaken the protections for victims of trafficking. For example, there are plans to introduce quality standards for external medical evidence in the adults at risk policy, including proposals to limit the weight of remote assessment, and a stipulation that healthcare professionals should have all the immigration documents and medical records relating to conditions, which a potential victim might not be comfortable disclosing or be able to disclose.
Yesterday, the Minister emphasised his pride at this country’s leading role in identifying and protecting victims of modern slavery, but he also stressed that a rebalancing is required—if I have understood correctly—between protections for victims and immigration controls. He identified what he said is, by design, an “extremely low threshold” for a reasonable-grounds modern slavery decision whereby there is a requirement only to suspect, rather than to prove, someone is a potential victim of trafficking, and explained that the Government are looking to make adjustments to that, as set out in the new plan for immigration.
I am sorry to say that all that is delivering a downgrading of those protections, which we could have been proud of. That is an erosion of existing safeguards and it will undoubtedly increase the risk of vulnerable individuals being retraumatised in detention.
We are concerned not only by the implications of this statutory instrument but by the way in which the Government have sought to circumvent good practice and due diligence in their processes. The consultation period lasted just two weeks during the summer of last year, without the presence of specialist stakeholders and organisations. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has aptly described the consultation as “poor practice”. Shockingly, the Government did not consult the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner or her office on these proposals. I very much hope that the Minister has read Dame Sara Thornton’s letter dated 19 April outlining a range of issues with the proposals.
As many will already be aware, survivors of modern slavery are at increased risk of long-term depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, suicide attempts  and health complications. Last week, the Royal College of Psychiatrists published a statement saying that it believes that detention centres are likely to precipitate a significant deterioration in mental health in most cases, greatly increasing both the suffering of the individual and the risk of suicide and self-harm. In 2017 the Government promised a scheme called Places of Safety to allow survivors to access their rights soon after being identified in settings such as police raids or labour inspections. That would have given survivors an opportunity to access legal representation and advocacy while at their most vulnerable, as well as increasing the number of successful trafficking referrals to decision makers. Sadly, the Places of Safety scheme was never delivered, and as a result thousands of suspected slavery survivors were identified but never referred for support or decision making. I would very much like to know what has happened to that scheme, so will the Minister clarify that? An additional concern is the Government’s decision to cancel the pilot schemes exploring community alternatives to detention. I hope the Minister can also give some clarity to that crazy decision.
These changes represent a significant downgrading of the protections against detention currently given to potential victims of human trafficking. The Government say they want to introduce this statutory instrument so that the adults at risk policy can be used as the single mechanism for vulnerable individuals, in order to clamp down on the policy anomaly that currently exists. To perceive such legislative change purely in terms of fixing a policy anomaly fails to acknowledge the devastating impact it will have on vulnerable victims and represents this Government’s concerning approach to wider immigration policy.
The Government have previously stressed that a reduction in the number of people in detention is a key aspect of the series of reforms they are making across the detention system, yet this statutory instrument will achieve the exact opposite. Regrettably, it represents the Government’s failure to offer a solution that is compassionate, fair and deserving of vulnerable victims of human trafficking.

Chris Philp: I thank the hon. Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch) for her speech. As she said, this matter was debated just yesterday in a Westminster Hall debate that was attended by one colleague.
Let me start by reiterating the Government’s commitment to tackling modern slavery. The UK has led the world in protecting victims of this heinous crime. We will continue to support those who have suffered intolerable abuse at the hands of criminals and traffickers, and we will do everything in our power to ensure that perpetrators face justice. In a further demonstration of our commitment to supporting victims of modern slavery, the new modern slavery victim care contract went live in January this year, with an estimated whole-life cost of £379 million over its five-year lifetime. It will deliver a better service that it is needs-based and will do even more to look after individual victims.
It is worth mentioning that last year there were about 10,000 claims by victims of modern slavery and we made about 10,000 positive reasonable grounds decisions.  That is, I think, one of the highest numbers, if not the highest, in Europe, and it is many times higher than in comparably sized European countries. So there is no question but that the United Kingdom leads Europe in its work on protecting victims of modern slavery. We have also embarked on an ambitious national referral mechanism transformation programme to do even more work than we are doing already. We have, moreover, launched a review of the 2014 modern slavery strategy that will allow us to build further on the progress made.
Although our commitment to cracking down on these appalling crimes remains undiminished, being recognised as a potential victim of modern slavery does not and should not automatically result in being granted immigration status in the UK or immunity from immigration proceedings. There may be potential victims or victims of modern slavery who have no lawful basis to remain in the UK, some of whom will be dangerous foreign national offenders, and about whom we are faced with decisions about using detention lawfully as a means of securing their removal. That is especially true when other options, including voluntary return, have been exhausted. Where we are faced with these decisions it is important that they are made in a way that is consistent, fair and balanced.
The shadow Minister mentioned detention, and it is worth saying that the use of detention for immigration purposes has been reduced significantly. The number of people in immigration detention in December 2019, before the pandemic started, was about half the level reported in September 2017. Moreover, of those entering immigration detention in 2019, I believe, from memory, that 39% spent only a week and about 75% spent less than 28 days in immigration detention. It is used sparingly and only where necessary to deliver our immigration rules properly.
The rules we are discussing today rectify an anomaly in the existing policy to bring detention decisions for potential victims of modern slavery within the scope of the adults at risk policy. That is the policy we use to make detention decisions for vulnerable people, including those with serious physical or mental health disabilities. At present, the adults at risk policy requires detention decisions for potential victims of modern slavery to be made with reference to separate Modern Slavery Act 2015 statutory guidance. That guidance does not steer decision makers in how to balance a person’s vulnerability against other considerations when making detention decisions, but makes reference only to public order, as the shadow Minister said.
We believe that the adults at risk policy, which already caters to all kinds of other very serious vulnerabilities, is the appropriate framework for detention decisions for potential victims of modern slavery. It allows for a nuanced and balanced assessment of detention decisions to be made, which the current policy does not allow. It also supports our desire for a clear and consistent approach to safeguarding in immigration detention decision making and will enable decisions for potential victims to be made in line with those for other categories of vulnerable individuals. To be absolutely clear, the vulnerability and risks associated with potential victims of modern slavery will categorically continue to be fully accounted for and fully considered.
Let me be clear: these regulations will not weaken the protections afforded to potential victims of modern slavery. The adults at risk immigration detention policy  is well-established—it has been in place for at least five years. It enables officials to identify vulnerable adults and make decisions about the appropriateness of their detention, balancing all relevant considerations. The adults at risk policy strengthens the presumption in immigration policy that a person will not be detained where they may be particularly vulnerable to harm in detention.
Moreover, we do recognise and will continue to recognise the specific protections afforded to those in receipt of a positive reasonable grounds decision, in accordance with the European convention on action against trafficking in human beings. All those protections will, of course, be respected, and I can also assure the House that caseworkers and other Home Office staff will receive the appropriate guidance and training so that they are able to properly take into account those special protections for potential victims of modern slavery. We fully accept that those specific considerations exist. We recognise that in some circumstances an individual’s history may have been influenced by their trafficking or their previous modern slavery experiences, and that will most certainly be reflected in guidance and in subsequent decision making. Let me also be clear that every decision is taken individually, on a case by case basis, and there is a presumption against detention where there is particular vulnerability to harm. Those two things should give the House a great deal of reassurance on these points.
In conclusion, as I have set out, modern slavery is a despicable crime. The UK is leading Europe in identifying and protecting victims and going after perpetrators. The changes we are contemplating today make use of a well-established, effective policy for protecting vulnerable people and enable a rounded and balanced decision to be taken in these difficult cases.

Stuart McDonald: Scottish National party MPs are fully behind this motion to revoke, and I support the arguments that the shadow Minister has set out. As well as thanking the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller), who secured yesterday’s debate, I want to thank the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) for his work on this, and I pay tribute to all survivor groups and others working in this field who alerted MPs to the significance and consequences of these regulations. These might be short regulations, but they are also deeply worrying regulations that could have severe impacts on trafficking survivors, and the so-called consultation on them was a pretty abysmal exercise altogether.
As we have heard, the goal of the statutory guidance on adults at risk in immigration detention is that it will, in conjunction with other reforms, lead to a reduction in the number of vulnerable people being detained, and a reduction in the duration of detention before removal. However, these regulations will have the opposite effect, because they remove crucial protections provided to those with positive reasonable grounds decisions. No longer will the detention of potential victims of trafficking be considered with reference to the separate Modern Slavery Act 2015 statutory guidance; instead, the process is to be merged into the overall adults at risk system. This means a serious dilution of the protections against detention currently afforded to potential trafficking  victims. Potential victims are, and should continue to be, entitled to a proper recovery period during which they cannot be removed and therefore cannot generally be detained, thanks to the Modern Slavery Act guidance.
Unless these regulations are revoked today, other immigration considerations will potentially be prioritised. An irregular immigration history, which many victims of trafficking will have, may mean a victim being locked up, and the standard of evidence of potential harm in detention required of them will be ramped up. In short, more victims of trafficking will be detained and more will be detained for longer—something the Government do not even seem to dispute. That means more potential victims suffering real and serious harm to their mental health. That is utterly against the Government’s stated objective in the guidance, and it is against their obligation to assist victims in their physical, psychological and social recovery.
In response to these very serious arguments, the Government seem to provide two arguments of their own. The first seems to justify the regulations on what amounts to little more than tidying up or administrative convenience: why burden officials with two systems of statutory guidance when one will do? The Government point out that potential victims of trafficking are the only group of people for whom such a special provision exists, and they call that a policy anomaly requiring correction, but these additional protections are absolutely justified, given what we know and understand about trafficking and the potential consequences of detention for such people. This is not a policy anomaly but a perfectly reasonable, proportionate response to the specific dangers that face trafficking victims. If anything requires correction, it is the mainstream adults at risk policy into which the Government want to throw trafficking victims. We know that it is overly burdensome and fails too many adults at risk. Let us fix that system, not meddle with the additional protections offered to trafficking victims.
The other Government argument appears to assert that there has been some evidence of abuse of the system, through false claims of trafficking designed to avoid detention. The answer to that it is not to make genuine victims suffer, as these regulations will, but to tackle the abuse head-on. It is the Home Office itself that assesses who is a victim of trafficking, and the answer is to invest in doing that better and faster. Why is it taking 456 days for potential victims to get positive grounds decisions? That is where the Home Office should look to weed out any abuse, rather than throwing victims under a bus.
Even if the Minister does not accept our analysis of the system as it stands, at the very least he should accept that if we are going to put everyone into one system, we should have a wide-ranging consultation and debate on how that system is working, what needs to be changed and what a better system could look like. However, instead of proper debate and consultation, we have had “poor practice”, as the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee said. After two years of Home Office policy development, a small group of stakeholders had two weeks during the August summer holidays to feed back. The whole process was hush-hush, with those involved not allowed to share the proposals beyond a select few. Those lucky enough to participate were largely ignored. This so-called targeted engagement failed to consult relevant groups, including, as I understand it, the Government’s own modern slavery strategy implementation  group or the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner. Wendy Williams’ Windrush review demanded that consultation on changes to policy should be
“meaningful, offering informed proposals and openly seeking advice and challenge.”
The consultation did nothing of the sort, and a bad piece of secondary legislation that will harm victims of trafficking is the result. That is why these regulations should be revoked.

John Martin McDonnell: I find it hard to believe that we are having this debate today, and that this delegated legislation has been introduced at all. Emotionally, many Members of the House will find it hard to take, especially those of us who have taken any interest in detention, and specifically modern slavery and trafficking, over the last two to three decades.
After all the years of campaigning to expose modern slavery and trafficking, and after Parliament’s achievement of the Modern Slavery Act 2015, which we are all proud of, this is like stepping back in time. It is a hugely retrograde step. After the exposure of trafficking and the recoil from the policies of the hostile environment, I thought we would never see this sort of legislation again. It is shameful that it has been brought before us. Have we learned nothing about the suffering that trafficking imposes on people? I urge the Minister and hon. Members not to support the motion, and to go back and look at some of the reports and investigations that led us to put in place extra protections for trafficking victims.
In 2017, Rahila Gupta—a member of Southall Black Sisters and now a famous author in my local community—wrote the book “Enslaved: The New British Slavery”. It was reported extensively at the time, and it shook many of us to the core with its descriptions of trafficking and the impact on our fellow human beings. Many other reports then followed, and we learned something of the scale of trafficking and its consequences in this country.
Yesterday, in Westminster Hall, the Government seemed to claim that the reason for this legislation was that the system was being abused somehow. No evidence for that claim has been published by the Home Office, and we have seen no independent assessment of the claim or data that the Government may want to bring forward to argue this case. What we do know, however—this is on the basis of research backed by the Home Secretary and undertaken in 2020 by Justice and Care and the Centre for Social Justice—is that there are estimated to be more than 100,000 victims of modern slavery in the UK. In 2020, only 3,000 people were positively identified as survivors of slavery in the second stage of the decision-making process.
I contend that the Government’s main worry should be their failure to identify and make safe the vast majority of people who have been trafficked into this country. The Government should concentrate on that, rather than on unsubstantiated allegations of abuse in the system. With no data published to prove it, the Government have argued that over the last 12 months, there has been a surge in foreign national offenders claiming to be victims of trafficking to disrupt immigration proceedings. That represents a complete failure to understand everything that we have learned about how many of those who are convicted are convicted of  crimes that they were forcibly trafficked to commit in this country. I cite the recent examples from many of our constituencies of the Vietnamese young people who have been trafficked into cannabis farms in the UK. Many of those who are trafficked and then convicted of crimes lack access to legal advice and support even to explain their circumstances and case.
The Government appear to be arguing that the threshold of reasonable grounds for determining whether someone has been trafficked is too low. Under the Council of Europe convention on action against trafficking, the threshold was deliberately set low to ensure that people are identified. I believe we have an international obligation to uphold that standard under the convention. People who are referred into the system are referred, as the Minister knows, by first responders, who are professionally trained and authorised by the Government. In detention, virtually all the referrals come from the Home Office itself. As the Minister said, the Government have offered us revised casework guidance. That has not even been published, yet we are expected to vote into law this statutory instrument—a leap in the dark.
If the consultation had been adequate, no Government could have reasonably brought forward this statutory instrument. As other Members have said, the consultation was extremely limited, in both who was consulted and the timescale. Consulting for only two weeks on something so significant is a dereliction of the Government’s duty, particularly on openness, transparency and the consideration of all reasonable factors. As others have said, the Home Office admitted to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee that more people will be held in detention if the instrument is approved. It will mean more people going into detention, but it will also be more difficult for people to get out of detention.
We need to recall the people we are talking about. These people are trafficked, exploited and abused, physically, sexually and mentally. They are extremely vulnerable. They are isolated and confused, often even lacking the ability to speak English, and they are suspicious of authority. Often, they have been emotionally abused to the extent that they are traumatised, and many suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder. These are the people that this statutory instrument will increasingly force into detention. And let us be clear: we know now that, in detention, there is little access to legal advice or to emotional or health support, so it is often very difficult for these people to communicate their circumstances and their case.
What does detention mean? Well, this is the reality of detention. I have two detention centres in my constituency: Harmondsworth and Colnbrook. I have been visiting Harmondsworth for more than 30 years. Years ago, it was a couple of Nissen huts, with no more than about a dozen people detained there. Now we have what are, effectively, two prison-style buildings housing anything between 800 and 1,000 detainees.
These detention centres are notorious. Detainees have died, with accusations of neglect, lack of care and abuse. Perhaps the Minister will remember the 83-year-old man who was taken from detention to Hillingdon Hospital and died still in handcuffs. On two occasions, riots have broken out, with Harmondsworth being burned down.
Detainees get lost in the system, too, with examples of some being detained for long periods, trapped in detention. The irony is that most will eventually be released and allowed to settle, becoming valuable members  of our community. The moral of this story is that we detain too many people unnecessarily and in unacceptable conditions. I believe that, in years to come, people will look back on this system with incredulity but also disgust.
I believe that this legislation, in addition to increasing the number of victims of trafficking in detention, will deter victims from coming forward. It will be used by traffickers to discourage victims from escaping. If the SI is passed, traffickers will say to victims, with some accuracy, “If you try to escape, you’ll be locked up anyway in a detention centre or prison.”
I believe that, if this House allows the statutory instrument to go on to the statute book, it will be seen as a disgraceful act of inhumanity. To attack some of the most vulnerable people, living in fear in our community, is a new low for this Parliament. I thought that we had all moved on. I thought we had moved forward. I hope that sufficient Members of this House still have the humanitarian instincts to reject this appalling measure.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister and all the contributors to the debate. This is an issue of great importance to me. I recognise that the Minister does his utmost in the capacity of what he is responsible for, and I believe in all honesty that he understands the issues that all of us are raising. The regulations, which will come into force on 25 May 2021, are an attempt to update the legislation with the latest information. It is clear that that is essential, as the number of people forcibly displaced around the world as a result of persecution, conflict, civil violence or human rights violations has rapidly increased in the last five years.
I declare a particular interest in this matter. As the Minister and other Members will know, I am chair of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief. One of the things that burdens my heart is those who are persecuted due to their faith and religion or because they belong to an ethnic minority. In this House, we have been trying over the years to ensure we have a system that enables those people to be considered for asylum and relocation. I have done it before, but it is important in these debates to give credit and thanks for jobs that are done. The Syrian resettlement scheme was brought in by this Government, and all of us in the House supported it.
In my constituency of Strangford, we were able through the scheme to relocate four Syrian families, who have been there for almost five years. I met one of them just last week to discuss a housing issue. I had not seen them in person for that period, but it was wonderful to see that they were settled, they had work and they had their families. The lady had a second baby. She said to me, along with some of the people from the churches who have helped out, “This is now my home.” Our Government made it possible for people to have their home in my constituency and, indeed, in many constituencies across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. That is life changing. That is what we can do when we get it right. I wanted to put that on the record, because I got the opportunity last Friday to meet that lady again. Her family went through terrible things and faced upheaval just because they were Christians; that is a fact of life. We were able to help, and I thank my Government and my Minister for that on behalf of them and myself.
The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees estimates that there are currently 79.5 million forcibly displaced persons around the world. I have raised this issue on many occasions and cited that some of these are the most vulnerable people from the most difficult backgrounds; it burdens me when I hear about them. Many countries detain asylum seekers in detention centres while their applications are processed or following a decision to refuse them protection. At present, the total number of third country nationals held in immigration detention in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in the year ending June 2020 is 698. I understand that the last year has been an incredibly difficult time, and that number is undoubtedly affected by the impact of covid-19 on the Home Office’s ability to release detainees. However, the United Kingdom has yet to reintroduce its resettlement programme. I am not sure whether the Minister is in a position to respond to this, but I am keen to know whether there is any intention to do again what the Government have already done well. We must ensure that that happens as soon as possible.
It is important to recognise that vulnerable persons detained in immigration centres have already experienced severe trauma. Many of them have seen things that we would never in a million years be able to envisage, understand or even contemplate. Many have PTSD and severe mental health issues associated with their pre-migration experiences. Prolonged detention—on top of all the trauma that they have had to go through—without sight of resettlement heightens those issues, and we need to do better for those people. What protections will the regulations provide to ensure that the detention of vulnerable persons is a limited process, instead of indefinite and non-reviewable mandatory detention? Is the updated guidance able to stand in the post-covid world that we find ourselves coming into, with the problems that we have?

Chris Philp: I thank all the Members who have contributed to this discussion. I particularly thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for his well-considered and thoughtful comments on the issues we are debating. I thank him for his remarks about the resettlement scheme, from which his constituents have benefited. That demonstrates the Government’s unshakeable commitment to protecting vulnerable people around the world.
The resettlement programme to which the hon. Gentleman referred has resettled 25,000 people over the past six years, which is more than any other European country. That is clear evidence of the Government’s compassionate commitment to those in genuine need. He referenced in particular persecuted Christians, of whom there are many around the world. In fact, following a speech that I heard him make in a debate in the Chamber a year or so ago, he will notice that the new plan for immigration expressly references persecuted Christians around the world and the need to offer them sanctuary here in the United Kingdom. Where Shannon led the way, the rest of the United Kingdom will, I hope, follow.
The hon. Gentleman asked for an assurance that the resettlement programme will continue. Yes, it will. In fact, it is already continuing. We recommenced a few weeks ago, so I can give him the assurance for which he asked. On the question of indefinite detention, we do  not detain people indefinitely for immigration purposes. About 75% of people in immigration detention are there for 28 days or less. It is used as a last resort. The Hardial Singh principles strictly set out the circumstances in which it can be used, and at any time anyone in detention can apply for immigration bail.
Most importantly of all, it is categorically not true and is not the case that we will be turning our backs on victims of modern slavery. On the contrary, we have done more than any Government in history to look after them. Indeed, we are doing more than any Government in Europe to protect and look after victims of modern slavery. The change that we are discussing today does not alter that fact. I can assure the House that decision makers will continue to take careful account of vulnerability, risk and the experience of modern slavery victims—or potential victims—when making these decisions. That will be fully taken into account, and balanced with other considerations. Victims will be respected, treated carefully and looked after, as they have been in this country for many years. We have a proud record on this topic, and that will continue for many decades to come.

Holly Lynch: I am afraid that we are not at all satisfied with the Minister’s contribution. This is a shameful downgrading of essential, hard-won protections for those who have been subject to some of the worst forms of exploitation and abuse. The Minister says that we lead in Europe on modern slavery, but he uses that as a justification for downgrading protections, which means that we will trample all over that sense of leadership and welcome progress on this issue. We will no longer lead in this policy area, which is much more about humanity than it ever will be about practicalities.
The Minister suggested that only one other colleague attended the Westminster Hall debate yesterday, but he did not clarify the fact that it was a 30-minute debate. As such, there were no contributions from other parties or other Members. The early-day motion praying against the statutory instrument has secured 77 signatures, and is a more appropriate reflection of colleagues’ interest in this important matter.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) made some incredibly powerful points, and I thank him for his leadership on this issue. We do not have the confidence to support the Government on proposed guidance that is yet to be published. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for his typically powerful contribution as well.
The protections currently in place represent far more than a policy anomaly. There is a strong case for them to be in place and we want to see those protections extended. We seek to divide the House to revoke these proposals.
Question put.

The House divided: Ayes 270, Noes 358.
Question accordingly negatived.
The list of Members currently certified as eligible for a proxy vote, and of the Members nominated as their proxy, is published at the end of today’s debates.

National Security and Investment Bill

Consideration of Lords message

Clause 61 - Annual report

Paul Scully: I beg to move,
That this House disagrees with Lords amendments 11B and 11C.
The amendments made in the other place concern what is in effect a reporting requirement to the Intelligence and Security Committee in respect of the national security and investment regime. They incorporate the text of Lords amendments 11 and 15, which were considered in this House on 26 April. In addition, they would end the reporting requirements on the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy provided for by Lords amendments 11 and 15 should the memorandum of understanding that governs the remit of the Intelligence and Security Committee be amended to bring the Secretary of State’s activities under clause 26 into the scope of ISC scrutiny.
This House has already offered a view on the substance of amendments. It is disappointing that the other place has not heeded the clear and carefully considered message from this Chamber that the amendment to provide for a reporting requirement to the ISC is neither necessary nor appropriate. I welcome the Lords’ continuing attempts to find compromise, but I respectfully disagree with them. The Secretary of State has written to confirm plans for scrutiny with the Chair of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, the hon. Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones), and the Chair of the Science and Technology Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark). The ISC remains able to scrutinise the work of the intelligence services where it falls within the memorandum of understanding and in accordance with the Justice and Security Act 2013.
As we rapidly approach the end of this Session, it is essential that this vital Bill on the UK’s national security does not fall as a result of our failure to agree that the BEIS Committee will continue to scrutinise the work of the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. I therefore urge the House to reject amendments 11B an 11C from the other place and reiterate its message about the will of this democratically elected House, to help ensure that the Bill becomes law without delay.

Chi Onwurah: I again thank colleagues in the other place who have worked tirelessly to improve the Bill.
Labour is the party of national security and has long called for a new regime to deal with the evolving national security threat arising from mergers and acquisitions, as the Bill seeks to do. The Bill was much improved in Committee, as the Minister acknowledged in Monday’s debate; however, as Members from all parties highlighted then, it still lacks an appropriate level of oversight for critical national security decisions. Labour believes that Intelligence and Security Committee scrutiny is essential  to provide the robust and sensitive oversight and accountability that matters of national security require. The Bill gives significant new powers to BEIS, a Department traditionally lacking in national security experience.
On Monday, as the Minister indicated, the Government rejected Lords amendments 11 and 15, stating that
“it is appropriate and sufficient for oversight and scrutiny of decisions made by the Secretary of State for BEIS to be conducted by their departmental select committee”—
that is, the BEIS Committee. The Lords have responded with amendments 11B and 11C, which would allow the Government to add the Investment Security Unit into the Government and ISC memorandum of understanding, thereby removing the obligation to provide the ISC with a confidential annexe.
We maintain our position: that the BEIS Committee does not have the security clearance necessary to provide scrutiny. In Monday’s debate, the Chair of the Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones), said clearly that the Committee
“does not have the access to the intelligence information that it would need in order to adequately scrutinise the Investment Security Unit in the BEIS Department.”—[Official Report, 26 April 2021; Vol. 693, c. 164.]
As the Minister indicated, the Secretary of State has said that classified information could be shared with the BEIS Committee on a case-by-case basis, but the retaining, recording, discussing or reporting of that information after the fact would constitute a security breach, somewhat limiting the Committee’s actions.
In this afternoon’s debate in the other place, the Government said that they will “carefully consider” ways in which classified information could be provided so that the Committee can do its job. Why do we need careful consideration when we have, through the Intelligence and Security Committee, an existing and functioning mechanism for parliamentary scrutiny on issues of national security? Earlier this afternoon, the Government were again defeated in the other place, this time by an even greater margin, showing that, despite the Minister’s efforts, support for Intelligence and Security Committee oversight is growing. I feel that it is becoming an issue of intransigence and stubbornness—or, as former Conservative Health Secretary Lord Lansley put it today, “arrogance”—by a Government refusing to prioritise national security in the National Security and Investment Bill, and determined to overturn common sense for reasons that are unclear to us all.
It is clear to us that there is a need for Intelligence and Security Committee oversight. Indeed the Chair of the ISC, the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), said:
“The setting up of the new Investment Security Unit in BEIS”—
a function of this Bill—
“is…precisely the situation that the Government assured the House”—[Official Report, 26 April 2021; Vol. 693, c. 157.]
would mean that there was ISC oversight, under the memorandum of understanding between the Government and the ISC. Today’s amendment provides for ISC scrutiny until an amended MOU resolves the confusion that appears to exist—on the Government’s part, at least.
If the Government are serious about protecting the UK’s national security through this Bill, they will not force through legislation with such a significant blind spot. Labour, the Chair of the Intelligence and Security  Committee, the Chair of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, many Government Back Benchers and cross-party consensus in the other place all agree that the ISC is best placed to provide national security oversight. Why are the Government determined to stand alone in risking our national security in this case?

Owen Thompson: I will be very brief. Earlier this week, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn) made the case very clearly that we broadly support the principles of the Bill, but still have concerns over the levels of scrutiny, as we have heard from other Members. We have attempted to be constructive at all stages, and have tried to support the Government to find a balance between the needs of business and national security, particularly in relation to small and medium-sized enterprises.
Many amendments have been accepted, which will help to achieve this; we welcome the Government’s steps in that regard. However, the scrutiny process remains vital and we are not yet satisfied that it has been taken fully into consideration. The comments made by the Chair of the ISC earlier this week certainly highlighted that. I urge the Government to heed those words and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South.

Paul Scully: I am grateful to hon. and right hon. Members for their contributions and considerations in this debate and others. I will make a couple of brief points in response.
The nub of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) was the question of whether the BEIS Committee will have access to top secret information. We will make sure that the Committee has the information it needs to fulfil its remit and scrutinise the work of the ISU under the NSI regime. Much of the information is unlikely to be highly classified, but where the Committee’s questioning touches on areas of high classification, it is likely that relevant information could be given in a way that does not require as high a level of classification, and that this could be provided to the Committee on a confidential basis. If, however, the Committee does require access to highly classified information, we will carefully consider how best to provide this while maintaining information security in close collaboration with the Committee’s Chair.
The Government’s main powers to scrutinise and intervene in mergers and acquisitions for national security reasons comes from the Enterprise Act 2002. The powers under the Act sit with the Secretaries of State for BEIS and for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, not with the Cabinet Office. The BEIS Committee’s oversight of the new NSI regime is entirely in keeping with this and does not represent a reduction in the ISC’s remit, so there is no barrier to the Committee handling top secret or other sensitive material, subject to the agreement of the Department and the Chair of the Committee on appropriate handling.
This House should continue its excellent work of speeding this Bill towards becoming law for the benefit of the UK’s world-leading investment environment, as well as of protecting the nation’s security. I therefore urge the House to disagree with the Lords in their amendments 11B and 11C.
Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendments 11B and 11C.

The House divided: Ayes 358, Noes 269.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Lords amendments 11B and 11C disagreed to.
The list of Members currently certified as eligible for a proxy vote, and of the Members nominated as their proxy, is published at the end of today’s debates.
Ordered, That a Committee be appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendments 11B and 11C;
That Paul Scully, Michael Tomlinson, Jo Gideon, Lucy Powell and Stephen Flynn be members of the Committee;
That Paul Scully be the Chair of the Committee;
That three be the quorum of the Committee.
That the Committee do withdraw immediately.—(Mike Freer.)
Committee to withdraw immediately; reasons to be reported and communicated to the Lords.

Rosie Winterton: In order to observe social distancing, the Reasons Committee will meet in Committee Room 12.

Business of the House (Today) (No. 2)

Ordered,
That, at this day’s sitting, the Speaker shall put the Questions on the motion in the name of Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg relating to Amendments to the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme not later than one hour after the commencement of proceedings on the motion for this Order; such Questions shall include the Questions on any Amendments to the motions selected by the Speaker which may then be moved; the business on that motion may be proceeded with at any hour, though opposed; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.—(Scott Mann.)

Amendments to the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme

Rosie Winterton: Before I call the Leader of the House to move the motion, I should inform the House that Mr Speaker has not selected amendment (a) in the name of Sir Christopher Chope.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I beg to move,
That this House endorses the report of the House of Commons Commission entitled Amendments to the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme, HC 1384, laid on Thursday 22 April; and approves the revised bullying and harassment policy and outline procedure, and sexual misconduct policy and outline procedure, set out in Annexes 1 to 4 of that report.
Before I begin, as I may not have the opportunity tomorrow, may I start by thanking Ray Mortimer for his service to the House? He is leaving after 18 years of serving us, and he has always in my time in the House—and I am a mere stripling of only 10 and a bit years’ service—been one of the friendliest, most approachable and helpful members of the first-class Doorkeepers team. He was welcoming to me from the day that I arrived, and he has always been smiling and positive. He knows better, dare I say, what the business of House is going to be, if one needs advice, sometimes than one’s own Whips know and sometimes even than the Leader of the House himself knows, and this is characteristic of the Doorkeepers. I know that my private office in particular has always appreciated Ray’s good humour, support and friendliness, too. I am sure that Members from across the House will want to thank Ray for his service. I also thank the shadow Leader of the House, who warned me that this was happening, and that is how I knew.
Turning to the motion in my name, the central aim of the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme is to help improve the working culture of Parliament. The Government continue to be determined to play our part, giving the House an opportunity to have its say on the proposed reforms and their relative merits in achieving the change we are all striving for. This motion endorses the report agreed by the House of Commons Commission on amendments to the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme.
At the time that the ICGS was created, it was important that the scheme was established as rapidly as possible. Built in to the set-up process were two reviews—one after six months and a second after 18 months—both to provide an opportunity for the scheme to be assessed and improvements identified. Inevitably, when looked at over time, there were aspects that required improvement.
I am grateful to Alison Stanley for the dedication and professionalism she has showed in her work reviewing the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme, and in particular for her most recent extensive review, published on 22 February. It has been useful to have an independent and expert assessment of the ICGS, providing Parliament with a carefully considered set of recommendations that will help us to hone the scheme further and make Parliament a better place to work.
As the Leader of the House of Commons and co-sponsor of the review, I have taken a keen interest in the report. I am confident that the proposed changes will improve  the policies and procedures of the ICGS, while simplifying and streamlining the management of cases. We have already made progress with the implementation of the proposals for textual changes to the policies and procedures concerning complaints of bullying and harassment or sexual misconduct in response to Alison Stanley’s report. These changes, endorsed by the Commission on 22 March, include the retention of the factual accuracy check as the key means of review, the imposition of a time limit for bullying and harassment cases, and textual changes to ICGS policies and procedures.
The motion today will amend the ICGS in several important ways. The language of the ICGS will be amended to make it less pre-judgmental—for example, by removing phrases such as “a case to answer”. The terminology will be updated to reflect language actually used by the ICGS helpline and team. The wording of the bullying and harassment policy will also be amended, to align more closely with that in the Equality Act 2010. The procedure will be altered to enable the independent investigator to consider at the initial assessment stage whether the complaint has already been fully and fairly considered in another context. That is an important development that will mean that double jeopardy is avoided.

Jim Shannon: The Democratic Unionist party supports what the Government have introduced, and I want to put that on the record. Whenever we get the conclusions of what the Leader of the House is saying, it will be important for them to be given—I am sure that this is going to be done—to the Northern Ireland Assembly first of all, and to the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly so that they can endorse them in their own regional Administrations.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that extremely sensible point. I would not want to trespass on the exclusive cognisance in their own fields of the various other Parliaments, but if it were thought useful I could certainly ensure that copies of what we propose were sent on an information basis. I am looking at both the SNP and the DUP in the hope that they would not think that that was an impertinence and an attempt to interfere. If those proposals were of use, however, I think that that would be a sensible thing to do.
The ICGS will be streamlined with the removal of the right to seek a review of the draft formal assessment, which is a current means for a complainant to request review when an investigation concludes that the case is not upheld. The factual accuracy check will now be the single point at which both parties, complainant and responder, can correct inaccuracies in the report. The system that we have had until now, which combines a factual accuracy check and a review, has resulted in substantial delay in some cases. We have debated the need for investigations to come to a conclusion more speedily on a number of occasions, and this straightforward measure will help to achieve that.
Another important recommendation concerns the introduction of a time limit for non-recent cases. That will apply only to bullying and harassment cases. The new timeframe will be brought in a year from now, applying to new complaints arising from 28 April 2022.  From that date onwards, people can report an incident of bullying or harassment up to one full year after it occurs. That compares with the three-month deadline for claims to an employment tribunal, so the House is once again setting a standard higher than that expected in external workforces. Given the particular nature of sexual harassment cases and the understandable reality that people often need longer to feel able to bring forward such a case, there will be no time limit for those cases.
In addition to the changes recommended by the review, further technical changes are proposed to the policies and procedures, including making it clear that although bullying, harassment and sexual misconduct are defined in the same way across the parliamentary community, the Commissioners for Standards in both Houses are responsible for overseeing investigations, so there are some procedural differences. Other recommendations include aligning the language of the two policies and procedures more closely; amending the procedure documents to be clear that they provide an outline only of the procedure; making it clear that complaints can be made of any former member of the parliamentary community; including in the bullying and harassment policy that victimisation is an aggravating factor, as included in the sexual misconduct policy; and finally, including information on data protection.
I would like to provide some reassurance about whether the changes set out in the motion would have retrospective effect. For the majority of changes to the text of the policies and procedures, the question of retrospection does not arise. Some of the changes are purely linguistic—for example, the change in terminology from “case manager” to “independent investigator”, to ensure that the documents reflect the terminology used by those involved in the process, or the change from “reporter” to “complainant” in sexual misconduct complaints. In those cases, it would not be meaningful to talk about retrospection.
Other changes have been made to reflect existing practice. For example, the factual accuracy check, which was introduced as a procedural step some time ago as a matter of fairness to both parties, is now expressly referred to in the documents. Other changes have been made to clarify the language and to amend defects in the drafting to ensure that the documents clearly reflect the policy intention at the time they were made. It will be for the decision maker to decide how to apply the policy in cases already under way, considering both the language at the time and the intention. I will repeat that for the benefit of the House, because it is a fundamental point: it will be for the decision maker to decide how to apply the policy in cases already under way, considering both the language of the policy at the time and the intention. For Members or former Members, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards makes the initial decision, which can then be appealed to the independent expert panel in accordance with the IEP’s own procedures. For former staff, the house service is the decision maker, and for Members’ staff, the decision maker will be the Member.
There are also some minor changes where it is fair and reasonable to apply the changes—

Christopher Chope: The Leader of the House has addressed the issue that has been a concern to me and that led to me seeking support for an  amendment—the issue of retrospection—but I am rather disappointed that he does not seem to be ruling out the fact that changes to paragraph 4.3 are retrospective. How can it be justified that we make retrospective changes to paragraph 4.3 which, subject to the decision maker, can be allowed to be lawful? Surely if we change the rules we should change them prospectively rather than retrospectively.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: My hon. Friend makes an important point. The issue is that it is not at this stage clear what decision the decision maker would make on the language that is currently used in the light of the policy that was adopted by the House. What we are passing today does not change the ability of the decision maker to make a decision on the language of the policy at the time. It is not an attempt to say that the decision maker must follow a new set of words or an old set of words. It is for them to look at what was there at the time both in policy and in terms of language and decide what the right decision is.

Christopher Chope: But paragraph 16 of the Commission report states that the drafting of paragraph 4.3 has merely
“been updated so that it more clearly reflects the policy intention of the Commission and the House, when the resolution relating to non-recent cases was passed in July 2019”.
Without anticipating my own speech, all I can say is that there is no evidence at all that there was such a policy intention at that time, and I am very worried that those words in paragraph 16 could be used by a decision maker in order to justify what I would regard as retrospective change.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: It is not for me to say what decision the decision maker should come to, but the decision maker should base any decision on the language of the policy at the time. It would not be fair to make a decision on our clarification ex post facto. I hope that is helpful to the House.

Edward Leigh: I think this is quite important. The House is perfectly entitled to change its rules, but it is an absolutely fundamental part of natural justice that laws should not be changed retrospectively. Just for the sake of argument, we may, for instance, be dealing with a historical case that happened several years ago and the Member has left this House. It is absolutely vital that the Leader of the House makes it clear that that person would be judged according to the rules at the time, not according to the way we are changing the rules now. Do I make myself clear? If he makes that clear, that would be very helpful.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: My right hon. Friend is absolutely clear, and that is broadly what I have been saying. What I am not committing to is to saying how the decision maker would interpret the rules as they were at the time, in view of the stated intention that the House had, because there was a degree of disagreement between the two. That is a matter for the decision maker to decide on the basis of the wording at the time, not on the basis of subsequent changes to the wording. What we are doing today should not influence the decision maker’s view of what existed at the time in one direction or the other. It should be based on what existed at the time.

Charles Walker: Then who will decide whether a complaint is in or out of scope according to the rules as drafted two years ago, which are being changed today?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The interpretation of the rules will be for the people who are the decision makers. As I set out earlier in my comments, ultimately it is for the IEP on appeal. In relation to Members’ staff, it would be the Member themselves. For somebody working for the House, it would be the House authorities, and for a Member of Parliament, it would be for the commissioner to determine what the rules at the time meant but not to jump to a change in the rules. That, I hope, is clear. I wish I could give the interpretation of what the rules mean, which is what my right hon. and hon. Friends are asking for, but that is not my territory. I would then be trespassing on the independence of this process, which is its whole virtue. I am simply making it clear that any decision maker should base it on the language of the policy at the time.

Charles Walker: On that basis, it is possible for a variety of decision makers looking at the rules as they were before they were changed to come up with different decisions. Is that not a problem? One decision maker may interpret the rules in a different way from another decision maker, and that in itself creates a problem.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: My hon. Friend makes a point that is sorted out by the fact that there is an appeals system and a senior body that can, on appeal, determine this, which I imagine other decision makers would then want to follow. It is not the same as a court, but it is not entirely dissimilar. Lower courts can make a decision, but ultimately there is an appeal body that will make a decision that we would then expect the lower-down decision makers to follow. I do not think that the problem he outlines would last, because there is a proper appeals system to the independent expert panel, which, very much at the request of Members across the House, contains very serious legal expertise, so that we can ensure that in all these cases, natural justice is done and it is fair to both complainants and respondents.

Christopher Chope: Will the independent panel be accessible by former Members, rather than just current Members? In paragraph 3 of the Commission’s report, there is a reference to the changes to which we are referring being
“recommended by staff for clarification and updating of the documents.”
Are those staff involved in any of this decision making? Can my right hon. Friend ensure that those recommendations from the staff are published, so that we can all see what they were and the basis on which they were put forward?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Alison Stanley carried out a very thorough review and spoke to a number of people across the parliamentary estate to get their views and to get a full understanding of how the overall system was working. She drew her conclusions from that and made recommendations to the Commission, the bulk of which will be implemented if the House decides to support tonight’s proposal. When discussions are held in confidence, it is unfair retrospectively to undermine that confidence,  so I could not give the commitment that the views given to Alison Stanley should be made public, because the views were not solicited on that basis.

Christopher Chope: It was a mistake to put two points in one intervention. My first point was about whether former Members of Parliament will have access to the independent panel for appeal.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The independent expert panel is available for appeals for people who get caught up in the ICGS system. If any conclusion is made, I believe people have the right to ask to appeal to the panel. Not all appeals are guaranteed, but there is a right to ask for one. As far as I am aware, that applies to anybody who comes up within the system.
Let me come to the other minor changes. The original documents were clear that confidentiality is central to the process, but they made reference to the possibility that either a complainant or a respondent might wish to discuss the matter with a small number of people to seek practical support. Those mentioned were managers and HR services or other relevant parties. The new version refers expressly to trade union representatives and party Whips, because concerns were very reasonably raised that the document should make it clear that a Member who discussed his or her case with a Whip would not be in breach of the requirement of confidentiality. That clarification is relevant in all cases, whether or not the complaints procedure has already begun.
Where there is a real change to the policies and procedures, I am happy to confirm that the changes are not being applied retrospectively. In particular, the new one-year time limit on complaints of bullying and harassment will not be applied to any complaints made before 28 April 2022, and that is clear from the text before the House. Alison Stanley also recommended the removal of the complainant’s right of review because of the degree of overlap with the factual accuracy check. Any complainant who has made a formal complaint before the House’s approval of the amended texts will continue to be able to request a review on the grounds set out in the existing documents, namely that the procedure was flawed or that substantial new evidence has become available.
The purpose of all the changes we are debating today is to ensure that the ICGS is an effective, efficient, clear and comprehensive system for complaints and support. These alterations will make a difference to the running of the scheme and will help us to make progress towards real and sustained culture change in Parliament—something I know Members across the House are keen to continue to champion and support. I commend the motion to the House.

Rosie Winterton: I know that Mr Speaker and the other Deputy Speakers would want me to agree wholeheartedly with the words of the Leader of the House about Ray Mortimer, whose service to the House is deeply appreciated, as is the kindness and courtesy that he has always shown to us. We will miss his cheerful presence. We wish you well, Ray.

Valerie Vaz: I start by thanking the Leader of the House for outlining the position in relation to the motion. This is a good time to thank the people who started off the whole process of setting up the ICGS, who may have moved on before they had a chance to be thanked. It was a difficult task from the start, and they have done incredibly well. As the Leader of the House has said, Alison Stanley reviewed the process and then undertook an 18-month review, which was published on 22 February. I thank her for her diligence in her work.
The Commission discussed a report on the proposed changes, and that is now before the House. It includes amendments made in response to the 18-month Stanley review, and additional changes to policies and procedures. I want to deal with the response to the Stanley review. We have the introduction of a time limit from 28 April 2022, such that
“a complaint may not be brought more than one year after the incident…complained of.”
At present, there is no time limit on non-recent cases. Stanley suggested two years, acknowledging that tribunal cases have a time limit of three months. The Commission report states that the time limit will be one year from the date of the incident complained of.
The independent investigator will also be able to consider at the initial assessment stage
“whether the complaint has already been fully and fairly considered in another context.”
If it has, there will be grounds for rejecting the complaint. We know of incidents where staff have taken a complaint through the normal grievance procedures and also through the ICGS. As the Leader of the House outlined, we cannot have this double jeopardy. Again, the definitions are being aligned with the Equality Act 2010 to include all the protected characteristics. The 18-month review found that the combination of a factual accuracy check and the right of the complainant to seek a review of the investigators’ findings had delayed some cases substantially, but the factual accuracy check remains available for both parties to correct factual inaccuracies.
I turn to the policy and procedural changes. These will use the same words for both the complainant and respondent for all bullying, harassment and sexual misconduct cases. It is also stated that the existing procedure documents have been shortened and amended to make it clear that they provide an outline only of the procedure, and that further detailed information on the different stages of the process is available from both the ICGS team and the relevant decision-making body.
The Leader of the House has not clarified some of the questions that were asked. I find it concerning that the procedures should be in lots of different places and that they are not in a usable form. We have Standing Orders and “Erskine May”, so things are out there and transparent. We also have obiter dicta from his podcast about how Parliament works. Making it obscure and asking the team in the relevant decision-making body does not give clarity, certainty and transparency. People should not have to go to different places to find out what the procedures are. I am happy to work with him and anyone else to ensure that the procedures are published  in full, so that everyone is aware of them. Again, victimising a complainant for bringing a complaint would be treated as an aggravating factor.
I turn to the vexatious question that has been before the House on the change to the drafting in relation to non-recent cases, which was agreed in July—that it should be possible to complain about the conduct of any former member of the parliamentary community, be they Clerks or anyone else, whether or not they hold a parliamentary pass when the complaint is made. As currently drafted, there is an “and” in paragraph 4.3, as the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) said. The person has to hold a parliamentary pass, and the change is to whether or not former members of the parliamentary community—whether it is a Clerk, a Member or anybody else—hold a parliamentary pass. I think that that offends the principles of natural justice, one of which, I remind hon. Members, is procedural fairness—the right to a fair hearing. That means that people know the rules by which they are being judged and that people act fairly, act in good faith, without bias, and give each party an opportunity to state their case.
Procedural fairness, in my view, is not changing the rules and making them apply retrospectively. The Leader of the House did not actually say whether the rules were retrospective or not, so I ask him to confirm whether any changes made today will apply to the current cases that are going forward. I know that he suggested that it was about the decision maker, but actually, as the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker) pointed out, it is an individual decision maker. They are all separate and they are all different. That is why there should be a set of rules that everybody can see and everybody can apply. In no quasi-judicial situation do we ever have different decision makers making different decisions on a rule that is not clear. The amendment sought to clarify that, so I hope that the Leader of the House will too.

Julian Lewis: I apologise to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I did not hear the opening comments from the Leader of the House because I was chairing a Committee meeting in another building. Following as closely as I can what the shadow Leader of the House is saying, as I understand it—on this particular paragraph 4.3, about passes—I presume that she would not have any objection to a change in the rules saying, “Passes used to be required but no longer will be required”, as long as that applied only to future cases. It seems rather strange that it should be said, “We are not changing the rule—we are just clarifying what the House meant previously, and when it previously said that the person has to still hold a parliamentary pass, what it really meant was that he or she did not have to be holding a parliamentary pass at all.” That is surely not a clarification of the rule; it is a change of the rule and, therefore, it should be forward-looking and not retrospective, should it not?

Valerie Vaz: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that. I think he missed the earlier discussion about the lack of clarity around that, but it should not be the case that current cases are subject to a changes of rules. To me, that is a breach of natural justice. We cannot have different decision makers applying the rules as they interpret them. In my view, we cannot have changes in procedure to cases, because each case will be dealt with  differently, but as it was set out—as the hon. Member for Christchurch read out paragraph 4.3—it is fairly clear that there are the two limbs and therefore that any changes should apply to future cases.

Christopher Chope: I obviously agree with the right hon. Lady’s assessment of the importance of getting proper clarity and ensuring that we are not going to have retrospection, but may I also draw her attention to the sentence in paragraph 3 of the Commission report? I think my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House misunderstood that. It says that the changes that we are discussing were
“recommended by staff for clarification and updating of the documents.”
I am not referring to the Alison Stanley recommendations; this is something completely different. These changes that are causing us concern were recommended by staff. Is it unreasonable to ask whether we can see the document in which those recommendations were made and see whether some of the staff who made those recommendations may themselves have been involved or know decision makers?

Valerie Vaz: I do not have an issue with clarity. In fact, I think it is really helpful to see the thinking behind why the changes are being made, so unless there is some confidentiality issue, I do not see any problem. We are here discussing this, and we are not getting any clarity on it—certainly not from the interventions, or from the responses. There is no clarity on this, and I wish there were. There could be. That actually helps to make a system much fairer and work better, so I agree with the hon. Gentleman.
Let me move on to the next part of the Stanley report. She found in her review that those with a BAME—visible minority—background were less likely to have used the ICGS helplines compared with their white colleagues. She was concerned that several surveys
“carried out across Parliament have indicated that these groups are more likely to report that they have experienced bullying and harassment, sexual misconduct or discrimination.”
Despite that finding, there are no specific recommendations in the report that try to remedy it. Certain things have been remedied, but not others. In the light of the current climate, with Black Lives Matter, they should be considered.
Interestingly, in the introduction to its 2019 report “Stand in my shoes”, which has been published again on the intranet for Stephen Lawrence Day, ParliREACH stated that its findings confirmed its view that
“there is insufficient focus on and actions to challenge racial bias (both conscious or unconscious), and that many BAME”—
visible minority—
“staff expend effort each day to defend their right to work in Parliament and to progress through the organisation.”
It found that only 54% felt
“confident…to raise issues of concern”,
and 56% felt “comfortable being themselves”.
We know from other regulatory bodies that regulate professions, such as the General Medical Council and the Solicitors Regulation Authority, that BAME—visible minority—figures are over-represented among those complained about. The Alison Stanley review recommended that
“demographic analysis of the Helpline usage statistics”
should be
“carried out as soon as possible”.
I hope that the Leader of the House will ensure that that is undertaken, because it is unclear whether that recommendation has been implemented, or whether there are any other measures taken to address this issue.
I want to draw hon. and right hon. Members’ attention—they may not be able to see this in some of the reports—to the costs of the ICGS. Its budget for 2021-22 is £1.8 million. We have investigators. I recall from the start of setting up the ICGS that we wanted it to be as fair as possible. Some 28% of those investigators are police officers: these are not criminal matters, although if they are criminal they should go to the criminal justice system, and that is what they are there for.
I think there are many barristers on the Attorney General’s panel, even the C panel, who are not very expensive—they are quite cheap—who could do the investigations cheaply and weigh the evidence in a proper way in a fair system. In the end, we all want a system that works. We want to stop bad behaviour. It is in all our interests to have a fair system that is transparent so that we abide by the rules of natural justice and we get justice for all. In that sense, I support the motion.
As there will not be another opportunity to do so unless the Leader of the House schedules more business, I want to say a few thank yous at the end of the day. The Parliamentary Digital Service is getting us all back to Parliament. We have a message from PDS to turn off and turn on our computers. It is showing us what to do as more people return to the estate. I specifically want to thank Ian Doubleday in Norman Shaw South, who has been really helpful in enabling Members to come back, and in keeping us and Members’ staff safe.
I pay tribute to one of our senior doorkeepers, Ray Mortimer, who has been here since 2003. He has led the Speaker’s procession for eight years, and the procession to the Lords during state opening twice. He has been through six Serjeants at Arms and three Speakers, and is on his fifth Prime Minister. His good friend, mentor and boss—in capital letters—Phil Howse said:
“Ray has been a superb asset not only to the doorkeeper team but to the House, dedicating the past 18 years to delivering fantastic service. His colleagues will miss his knowledge and guidance to the team. He is going from one house of drama”—
here—
“to another, the Marlowe theatre in Canterbury. We wish Ray and his wife Sam good luck and all the very best for the future, and thank him for his amazing public service and the loyal service to the House of Commons.”
I am sure the whole House agrees.
From me, on a personal level, and just as the Leader of the House said, Ray is always good fun. He is always ready with advice about what is going on in the Chamber. He is extremely supportive of Members, all our work and the smooth running of the Chamber. He is always smiling and in a good mood. We will remember him as our little Ray of sunshine. Thank you, Ray, from all of us.

Christopher Chope: May I too express my thanks and good wishes to Ray Mortimer?
My interest in the issue arises from when I was on the Standards Committee, particularly during the 2017-19 Parliament. During that time, I was involved in discussions leading up to the creation of the ICGS and its extension in 2019. I have read the conclusion of the House of Commons Commission following Alison Stanley’s review, and I accept that the Commission is right to take the necessary measures in response to that review, but my concerns tonight are about the Commission’s endorsement of
“other changes recommended by staff for clarification and updating”.
I say to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that those are changes recommended by staff not in response to a request from Alison Stanley, but off their own bat. I do not know how they have appeared, who they were sent to or why we cannot see them, but it would be useful for the purposes of transparency if we could.
Those are set out in paragraphs 12 to 18 of the report. As has been discussed, the most significant change is in paragraph 16, which changes the scope of the provisions on bullying and harassment. I do not have any problem with the revision, but what I do have a problem with is the possibility that that change is retrospective. The issue of retrospection was discussed quite usefully in the original report. There was a legal opinion from Tom Linden, QC, on what were then being discussed as pre-scheme cases, and the opinion is set out on page 93 in the delivery report, published in July 2018. In that legal opinion, Tom Linden makes it clear that there is a common law presumption against retrospective effect. I hope that we are not going to get into territory where litigation will arise if people feel that the common law presumption against retrospection is not being honoured by the decision makers.
In that opinion, Tom Linden quotes Lord Brightman giving a good definition about what is retrospective and what is not. Lord Brightman says that it is
“retrospective if it takes away or impairs a vested right acquired under existing laws, or creates a new obligation, or imposes a new duty, or attaches a new disability, in regard to events already past.”
It seems to me, from what we have heard, that the changes to paragraph 4.3 would be regarded as retrospective if those principles were applied.
The words in paragraph 16 that these changes are
“so that it more clearly reflects the policy intention of the Commission”
are weasel words. I can say that there is no evidence whatsoever—I was on the Standards Committee—that the Standards Committee, the Commission or this House ever intended, when extending the scope to non-recent cases in July 2019, that it should be possible to complain of the conduct of any former member of the parliamentary community until that person died. In other words, it might be 10, 20 or 30 years hence.

Edward Leigh: Would it not be helpful if the Leader of the House, when he sums up this debate, made it absolutely clear that in the case of historic allegations, if the subject of that complaint is no longer a passholder, then that complaint should be judged firmly on the rules of the time?

Christopher Chope: I think the Leader of the House will say that he has more or less said that, but anything else that he can do to reconfirm that would be  extremely helpful. Where is the evidence that there was a misrepresentation of the intention in the wording of paragraph 4.3? The text of the paragraph remained the same in July 2019 as it was in June 2018, and if the new text had been intended to change the rules, then I think the Standards Committee, this House and the Commission would have been totally in opposition to any suggestion that we could expose former Members of Parliament to the risk of being complained against and investigated for the rest of their lives after they had left the House. In a sense, what this Commission report seems to say is that that was the intention, but it was never properly expressed in words. My view is that if that had been the intention and it had been expressed in words, it would never have been passed by this House, which is why I am agitated about this and particularly keen to see the terms in which the staff were recommending these changes.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I realise that other people want to join in the debate, but this issue will not go away unless we clarify that these changes will not be retrospective in any respect.

Owen Thompson: May I associate myself and my party with the comments made by Madam Deputy Speaker, the Leader of the House and the shadow Leader of the House in paying tribute to Ray? [Interruption.] He has changed, just like that! It goes without saying that all of us in this place, who have the use and the benefit of the experience of all the Doorkeeping staff, find that they are just such a resource and provide such guidance, especially for Members when they first come here; they help us with basic things such as finding our way around and how the place works. They really are an amazing team, so I add my thanks and tribute to Ray and all the Doorkeeping team, and I certainly wish Ray all the best for his new endeavours.
I also largely echo the comments made by the shadow Leader of the House, as we very much support these amendments, the intention behind them and what we are looking to achieve. I add my thanks to Alison Stanley for the review that has been conducted. No one deserves to be victimised, bullied, disrespected or harassed in any workplace, let alone in a Parliament, and we certainly should not be tolerating any form of sexual harassment or assault of any kind. So the processes we have in place and the review certainly help in that regard.
We have certainly found that the fact that there is no cut-off date now for sexual misconduct cases is a real, positive step forward. I agree that we perhaps need to look again at the time limitations on other incidents, because that needs further review, but, as with all of these things, this process needs to be organic. It needs to be able to adapt as it moves forward. What we agree tonight cannot simply be what it is for ever more; it needs to adapt to circumstances as we move forward. At a time when trust in politicians is at an all-time low—there is no hiding from that—it is crucial that we do everything we can to enhance that trust with the public, who send us here to do a job. They send us here to represent them, to be upstanding citizens and to do our bit to move things forward. I do not think it is unreasonable to expect that we should all be held to the highest possible standards on dignity, courtesy and respect. It should not detract from anything that we do that we put in place the measures before us tonight.

Janet Daby: Although I am speaking virtually, I, too, wish to join in expressing my thanks and best wishes to Ray Mortimer.
I welcome the amendments being proposed today. I can see that both Houses take the culture of bullying and harassment extremely seriously in Parliament, and Mr Speaker has shown his commitment to all staff working on the estate. The creation of the independent complaints and grievance scheme is a significant undertaking, and we need a system that works. In the spirit of supporting the scheme to be the best it can be, I need to raise the issue of discrimination against black, Asian and minority ethnic people, to ensure that it is not overlooked—it has already been mentioned in this House, so I am fairly confident that it is not being overlooked in this debate.
ParliREACH, the workplace equality network, has focused on enhancing racial and cultural awareness in Parliament. It released a report in 2019 showing the scale of difficulties that people from diverse backgrounds face. The “Stand in my Shoes” report found that this staffing group in particular faced daily struggles to be treated with respect and with decency; from cleaning staff right through to MPs and peers, we can be made to feel unwelcome in the very place we work in. Staff reported having their presence questioned and equal opportunities denied. ParliREACH said that many of its members were reluctant to speak up when they felt discriminated against. They spoke about worrying that they would be seen as “calling the race card”, and they “feared recriminations” as a result. They felt that they had to be cautious to pick their battles carefully. That should not be the environment that staff have to be work in, on top of the work they have to do; it is very distressing. Parliament must therefore advocate justice equally for all protected characteristics.
I myself had a completely demoralising encounter when I was relatively new to this House. I was made to feel as though I did not belong here, and I feel that this was because of my gender as well as my ethnicity. Although this happened almost three years ago and I went through the formal complaints system, it is still yet to be resolved. Does this tell us that tackling racial discrimination is a priority for the ICGS? It absolutely must be. Cases must be addressed faster, and each one treated with the care and sensitivity it deserves.
ParliREACH pointed out the need to make the ICGS more accessible for its members, including the non-desk-based staff in Parliament, many of whom are from black, Asian and minority ethnicities, for whom it is not easy to make a complaint. If they do not work at a desk or own a computer at home, how can we say that the system is working equally for them? If their only option is to report something to their manager, who might themselves be the problem, it is not serving their needs. We must understand that many people coming from diverse backgrounds struggle to believe that processes such as the ICGS will deliver justice. We need to ensure that they are confident in the process, and that the ICGS is working as well for them as for others. The amendments we are discussing will make going through the ICGS a much smoother process, but I hope that the comments I have expressed will be taken into consideration so that the ICGS can be further improved to best serve all the people it pledges to help and support.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am grateful to all those who have participated in the debate and, as always, to the shadow Leader of the House who, along with me, serves on the Commission. Of course, although these recommendations are brought forward by me as Leader of the House, they are brought forward on behalf of the Commission, so a number of questions that she raised are questions for the Commission rather than for me as Leader of the House. The Commission has its own spokesman, and as we both serve on it, that is probably the best way of getting the information that the right hon. Lady requires, because I do not wish to blur the lines between what is my responsibility as Leader of the House and what is the Commission’s responsibility.
My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) went back to his fundamental point, and I want to give him clarification on who may appeal to the IEP. There is one category of Member or former Member that is excluded, and that is a former Member who had the good fortune—if it is a good fortune—to go to another place. They would not be able to use the IEP. Anybody who brings a complaint against a Member is able to appeal to the IEP, and any Member or former Member except a peer is also able to take their case to the IEP.[Official Report, 12 May 2021, Vol. 695, c. 2MC.]
My hon. Friend reiterated his concern about the issue of retrospection. The best I can do is to go back to what I said in my speech, because this is fundamental. The people considering any of these cases must do so looking at the language of the policy at the time. I said that twice when I was speaking, I think I then reiterated it in an intervention, and I have now reiterated it a fourth time in winding up. I think that is very clear. Where I cannot be clear, because we have not had a decision, is on how the panel would interpret the rules at the time, because that is rightly a matter for the panel because it is independent. I hope that I am giving my hon. Friend most of the comfort that he wants, without trying to be a soothsayer and make a prediction of what may be determined in the future.

Julian Lewis: I know that my right hon. Friend will only be able to give me his opinion on this, in the light of what he has just said, but does he know of any specific historical case that is currently under way that would be ruled out of scope unless the rewording of paragraph 4.3 was applied retrospectively?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: My right hon. Friend raises a question of considerable importance and one that I have been very careful to avoid in all these discussions. It seems to me that it would be quite wrong to be making this decision, in relation either to what I have said about the rules at the time or to the new rules, with reference to any specific cases. That is fundamental to having a just and fair system. On the question he asks me, I know of gossip, but I have no confirmed knowledge of reports of who may or may not be facing an investigation. In all the deliberations I have done, whether on the Commission, in preparing my speech or in discussions I have had privately with the shadow Leader of the House, I have done it on the basis of general principles rather than trying to consider specific names. I think that is very important.
I thank the hon. Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson) for his support and for the contribution of his hon. Friend, the hon. Member for Perth and North  Perthshire (Pete Wishart), who is a member of the Commission, is always fully engaged with our discussions and makes a serious contribution to our deliberations.
I am concerned about the issue raised by the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby) about a complaint that has taken three years. That is one of the reasons that we had the Alison Stanley review. It is one of the issues that has come up up most commonly from people who have been involved with or have an interest in the ICGS—a feeling that things are taking too long. It is absolutely the aim of the Commission and the ICGS itself to ensure that things happen in a timely manner.
I thoroughly agree that every Member of this House and everybody who works for or in the House should be treated with respect and decency, regardless of their ethnic background or any other background issues. That is fundamental to the House, to our democracy and, dare I say, to the constitution of this nation. I think we can go back—although I will not in this speech—to Magna Carta and the idea that we have equality under the law and that we all should have; that is a fundamental position of the British constitution.
I am, of course—I reiterate this—acting for the Commission, but in acting for the Commission. I commend the motion to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House endorses the report of the House of Commons Commission entitled Amendments to the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme, HC 1384, laid on Thursday 22 April; and approves the revised bullying and harassment policy and outline procedure, and sexual misconduct policy and outline procedure, set out in Annexes 1 to 4 of that report.

Nigel Evans: Before we move on to the other motions, I too would like to send my thanks and congratulations to Ray Mortimer, who I can see is hovering at the back. Ray, I have been a Member for 29 years and you have therefore been a part of my life for the past 18 years, as you will have been for many people sitting around the Chamber. You have heard the accolades. You will be able to get Hansard tomorrow, take it home with you and, in your future life, I hope you will flip through the pages and read the warm wishes that you have received from so many people here. I hope it brings you and your family great joy. You have been very much front of house during the past 18 years; irrespective of what you are going to do with the Marlowe theatre, I hope you will take it in the right spirit—as I know you will—when I say, in the future, break a leg. Good luck.
This may also be the appropriate time to thank everybody who has made the past parliamentary Session work for us, under the most strenuous of conditions. I do not think that any of us thought, as we went into this covid situation, that we would be able to get democracy working in the way that we have. It was a bit clunky to begin with, but—my goodness me—we have learnt lessons and it has worked incredibly well. We thank the technicians and the broadcasting unit; we told Ray to break a leg, but they have been breaking their backs to ensure that the democracy here has worked.
We thank everybody: the Doorkeepers, the catering staff, the security, the cleaners and everybody who has made this democracy work. Thank you very much. We hope that there is light at the end of the tunnel, that the  stress that they have faced will be eased somewhat with the relaxations in the coming weeks and months, and that we can get our democracy back working as normal. I know that is what everybody in this place wants. Thank you everybody.
I remind the House that, in accordance with the order of the House today and Standing Order No. 41A(3), any Divisions on the next two motions will not be deferred.

Business without Debate

Delegated Legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Environmental Protection

That the draft Air Quality (Legislative Functions) (Amendment) Regulations 2021, which were laid before this House on 22 March, be approved.—(James Morris.)
Question agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Senior Courts of England and Wales

That the draft Civil Proceedings Fees (Amendment) Order 2021, which was laid before this House on 8 March, be approved.—(James Morris.)
Question agreed to.

Petition - Levelling Up Fund

Alexander Stafford: I rise to present a petition on behalf of the residents of Rother Valley calling for a powerful bid to be placed by Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council to secure a grant from the levelling-up fund. My petition, both online and on paper, has received strong local support, with over 1,800 constituents signing it. The people of Rother Valley are calling for our high streets to be transformed. I believe it is high time the local authority delivers on this priority.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the constituency of Rother Valley,
Declares that a strong bid for the Levelling Up Fund must be placed on behalf of the Rother Valley constituency; further that high streets in Rother Valley should form a central aspect of the bid placed; and further that proposals put forward by Dinnington Town Council and Dinnington Community Land Trust should be prioritised.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons call on the Government to urge Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council to ensure that high streets in the Rother Valley constituency can be rejuvenated via the Levelling Up Fund.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002662]

National Minimum Wage Enforcement

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(James Morris.)

Nigel Evans: We are going to have Andrew Selous on the videolink. While you are speaking, Andrew, if you do not mind, we will be sanitising the Government Dispatch Box, and I know Mr Scully has been under strict orders not to go anywhere near it until it has been properly sanitised.

Andrew Selous: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I am very grateful to Mr Speaker for granting me this debate.
I am very proud to support a Government who have committed to the national living wage being equivalent to two thirds of the median income by 2024, in addition to reducing the age for accessing the national living wage to 23 this month and to 21 by April 2024. We want work to be worth while and an effective route out of poverty, so it is important that everyone is entitled to the legal minimum wage.
Unfortunately, the combined impact of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 and the National Minimum Wage Regulations 2015, along with the provisions of the Care Act 2014 and the enforcement role of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, have all been completely ineffective in enforcing the law for one of my constituents, a carer who is owed £62,961 of unpaid wages below the minimum wage. Four other carers were in the same position. Who knows how many others across the United Kingdom are in the same position. I will use this case to demonstrate how the law has not worked effectively. I do not expect my hon. Friend the Minister to comment on the individual case, but I would like him to set out the plans the Government have to remedy the flaws in the current legislation, so that an effective remedy can be provided to people such as my constituent where now there is none.
My constituent—I shall call her Mrs Wright; it is not her real name—provided care for seven years to a disabled woman, whom I shall call Mrs Edwards, which is also not her real name. The wages to pay Mrs Wright were provided by Luton Borough Council and paid by a local charity into the account of the person being cared for. Checks were then made by Luton Borough Council to make sure that the money provided was paid over to the carer. Section 33 of the Care Act 2014 enables care to be devolved to the person being cared for, who enters into a contract of employment with her carer.
After seven years of good and faithful work caring for Mrs Edwards, the local charity that had received funding from Luton Borough Council sent the carer a schedule showing that, throughout the entire seven-year period, she had been underpaid a total of nearly £63,000. The local charity also paid the premium for an insurance policy to cover employers’ liability and legal expenses and costs should the carer have cause to sue the person being cared for—her employer, Mrs Edwards.
Mrs Wright, the carer, was never provided with the contract of employment by her employer. Both Luton Borough Council and the local charity say that they are not liable for this massive underpayment of wages because the contract of employment is between the carer and  the person being cared for, and has nothing to do with either of them. The legal expenses insurer did not even bother to reply, which is completely shameful. There is no point in suing the person being cared for—the employer—because she lives in a rented flat, has no other assets and all her income comes from state benefits. As Mrs Wright’s solicitor said to me,
“this is a wrong with no remedy.”
The aim of this debate—so that the Minister and I are not wasting our time—is to make sure that a remedy is provided to Mrs Wright and other carers in her position, so that the law requiring the payment of the minimum wage applies to them as well as to everyone else.
This matter was first brought to my attention in the summer of 2018. I did my research and found out that everything I had been told about the inability to secure the payment of wages legally due was true. I contacted Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to try to get enforcement action. HMRC said in the letter back to me that it was
“determined that everyone who is entitled to the national minimum wage should receive it.”
That turned out to be a hollow phrase, because no effective enforcement action can be taken against an employer who has no assets and, indeed, never had any in the first place. Luton Borough Council wrote back to me to say:
“any issue regarding alleged historical underpayment of minimum wage will be a matter for the person being cared for and the carer to resolve.”
I should point out that there is no “alleged” underpayment, because the agency employed by Luton Borough Council to check wages paid against wages legally required to be paid came up with a schedule showing the underpayment of nearly £63,000.
Having hit a brick wall with HMRC and Luton Borough Council, which was the local authority responsible for providing the person being cared for with funds to pay for the care provided, I went to see the previous Minister for Small Business, Consumers and Corporate Responsibility, who was very sympathetic and agreed that there was a problem. At that meeting, I was told that local authorities did indeed have a responsibility for direct payments, in that they must be satisfied that personal budget holders are capable of paying the minimum wage, and the local authority should have undertaken a six-month review, after which it should have reviewed the making of direct payment no later than every 12 months.
The Minister’s predecessor then helpfully wrote to the chief executive of Luton Borough Council, pointing out that it should have had an “effective monitoring process” of the direct payments to ensure that the individual fulfils their responsibilities as an employer and that, following the six-month review, the local authority should have reviewed the making of direct payment no later than every 12 months. In its reply, Luton Borough Council said that the carer had been paid a fixed weekly rate based on unmeasured work hours, when in fact the carer had very clear hours that she was expected to work.
The Minister’s predecessor also wrote to the Minister for Care at the Department of Health and Social Care to explain the problem. The previous Minister for Care wrote back to say that Luton Borough Council should  have been satisfied that the person being cared for was capable of managing direct payments by herself or with the help of the charity asked to provide that help. As I said, a local charity used by Luton Borough Council has produced a schedule showing an underpayment of wages throughout the entire seven-year period amounting to nearly £63,000.
I have raised this matter before on the Floor of the House with the Leader of the House, who said:
“I am clear that careworkers provide essential support to some of the most vulnerable members of society, and it is essential that they are paid in accordance with the law, including the national minimum wage, for the work they do. This is a responsibility of local authorities, which should ensure that personal budgets are sufficient to deliver a person’s care needs, including making sure that they cover the cost of wages, and local authorities have a duty to monitor how personal budgets are spent. However, the Department of Health and Social Care will take this up with the local authority and ask it to investigate what sounds like a very serious and concerning case.”—[Official Report, 25 July 2019; Vol. 663, c. 1450.]
I have also had a meeting with the Minister who is replying tonight.
In the 2019 Queen’s Speech, the Government announced that they would legislate to create a single enforcement body in an employment Bill. That Bill would give us the opportunity to remedy the very serious loophole that I have outlined. We should also remember the payment of premiums for an insurance policy to cover the employer’s liability and legal expenses and costs, which has been of no assistance whatsoever in this case.
The Minister will agree with me, I am sure, about the importance of people receiving the wages they are legally entitled to. We share a commitment to increasing the minimum wage to make it always worth while to go out to work and to lift more people out of poverty. I urge the Minister to make sure that the single enforcement body in the employment Bill will be up to the task of providing effective remedy in situations such as the one that I have described, and that it has retrospective power to help diligent, hard-working and highly compassionate carers such as my constituent, Mrs Wright.

Paul Scully: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) on securing today’s important debate and, indeed, his tenacity in supporting and representing his constituent. I am proud to serve as the Minister responsible for the national minimum wage, the national living wage and workers’ rights, among my other responsibilities. I very much value his generous words on the benefits of the national minimum wage to make sure that we can encourage people, as he rightly says, and ensure that work pays. We must protect people on the lowest pay grades, but make sure that they stay in work and have a fruitful career.
The Government are committed to building an economy that works for everyone. Through the national minimum wage and the national living wage, we continue to ensure that the lowest paid in society are rewarded fairly for their contribution to the economy. In April, we increased the national living wage by 2.2% to £8.91, which is the highest ever UK minimum wage. A full-time worker on the national living wage will see their annual   earnings rise by over £345. That amounts to a total increase of more than £4,000 since the national living wage was announced in 2015.
We have lowered the age threshold for the national living wage to 23 and, as a result, 23-year-olds and 24-year-olds will get a 71p increase. We have increased the time for which employers must keep minimum wage records from three to six years. That means that workers will get more of the historical arrears that they are owed. The Government are committed to cracking down on employers who fail to pay the national minimum or national living wage.

Jim Shannon: I thank hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) for introducing the debate. I am always encouraged by what the Minister says, and it is encouraging to hear the things that have been done. However, there are loopholes that allow the hours of casual workers not to be recorded and an appropriate minimum wage is not enforced, so does he not agree that they must be closed? Do his Government intend to ensure that employers will begin doing the right thing instead of being able to avoid it, as they can at the moment?

Paul Scully: The hon. Gentleman makes an important, twofold point. First, on anomalies, ignorance is no defence when it comes to paying the national minimum wage, and secondly, that is where enforcement comes in. I shall expand on that in a second. He is absolutely right to raise these issues, to make sure, as I have said, that companies are not balancing their books on the poorest paid in their workforce and in society.
We relaunched the minimum wage naming scheme on 31 December, naming and shaming 139 employers, including some of the UK’s biggest household names, for failing to pay the minimum wage. We have also more than doubled the budget for minimum wage enforcement and compliance since 2015. There are now over 400 officers in Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs dedicated to ensuring compliance with the minimum wage.
I should like briefly to share the results of HMRC’s work in the 2020-21 financial year. As we have heard, it was a really challenging year for the whole country. Many of HMRC’s investigations are carried out face to face. Its officers can arrive unannounced at business premises to check minimum wage records or to interview employers and workers. Those face-to-face visits clearly had to be limited in line with covid restrictions, and with many businesses closing their doors. Nevertheless, the Government believe that the pandemic is no excuse for failing to pay staff correctly, especially in sectors such as social care and retail, which have provided invaluable services over the past year. I am pleased that HMRC continued its enforcement and compliance work, prioritising desk work where possible and expanding its educational work with employers and workers.
Despite the pandemic, in 2020-21 HMRC closed over 2,700 cases, securing more than £16.7 million in arrears for more than 155,000 workers. It issued 575 penalties worth over £14 million. HMRC also contacted more than 770,000 employers and workers to improve awareness of the minimum wage. As part of this, it sent over 400,000 texts to apprentices regarding the risks of underpayment from unpaid training time. It wrote to nearly 200,000 employers and workers. HRMC produced  a variety of webinars and educational videos that accumulated nearly 20,000 views. One of those webinars is aimed specifically at the social care sector, covering travel time, waiting time and breaks. About 12,000 letters are being sent to Care Quality Commission-registered providers of home care service to highlight that webinar.
The Government acknowledge the particular challenges in enforcing the minimum wage in the care sector. We estimate that approximately 27,000 social care workers were underpaid the national living wage or national minimum wage in 2020. That represents just over 3% of all workers in the sector and is in line with previous years. All workers deserve the wage they are legally entitled to, but particularly key workers in the current context of the coronavirus pandemic. The Government therefore asked HRMC to focus on the sector in its targeted enforcement activity. We have also recently published comprehensive revised minimum wage guidance for all employers. That includes guidance on the recent Supreme Court judgment on sleep-in shifts, where we now have clarity after years of revolving court judgments.
But I am well aware of my hon. Friend’s concerns about social care workers. We met late last year, as he outlined, to discuss the issue of care workers providing care to individuals with direct payment arrangements, also known as personal budget holders. I appreciate that the situation with personal budget holders is particularly tricky as they are vulnerable individuals, but in minimum wage terms they are often the employers of their carers. That means, under minimum wage legislation, that any enforcement action by HMRC for underpayment of their care workers can only be taken against these individuals. I would like to give some assurances on how enforcement works in practice in such cases. Where complaints are received, HMRC works with all parties to ensure that personal budget holders receive the necessary help and support while also continuing to protect the rights of workers. As my hon. Friend said, local authorities have a duty of care under the Care Act 2014 to give personal budget holders clear advice about their responsibilities as an employer. Local authorities must also be satisfied that a personal budget holder is capable of managing direct payments, and should put in place an effective monitoring process related to those direct payments. Crucially, this involves checking to ensure that the individual is fulfilling their responsibilities as an employer. I understand that there are examples of local authorities stepping up to financially assist personal budget holders where minimum wage cases are brought against them. I strongly encourage this, and it is in line with the local authority’s Care Act duties, but ultimately HMRC needs to protect the rights of any underpaid worker.
Where arrears have been repaid to the worker, HMRC has discretion on whether to issue a formal notice of underpayment. HMRC rightly makes limited use of its discretion in practice, but cases brought against personal budget holders are instances where I would expect it to consider using that discretion. I therefore urge workers who care for personal budget holders and who believe them to have been underpaid, such as my hon. Friend’s constituent, to complain to HMRC or contact ACAS for advice. I understand, having spoken to my hon. Friend, that this is clearly an issue—although I cannot comment on his individual case in detail—that is a good few years old. As I say, I admire his tenacity in working with the council as well, pushing the council to do more  and also speaking to my predecessor as well as to me. I know that my hon. Friend is calling for HMRC to be able to enforce directly against local authorities in such cases, but HMRC can enforce only against the employer—that is laid out in primary legislation.
It is right that there is a clear line so that employers are always clear about their responsibilities and workers are always clear about their rights. Any change could call into question the other scenarios in which multiple parties are involved in employment, such as in respect of agency workers, umbrella companies or contractors. That could lead to protracted court cases to determine who is responsible for paying the minimum wage, which would only delay workers getting the pay to which they are legally entitled. We therefore have no plans to change the minimum wage legislation.
We are extremely proud of all our health and social care staff and recognise their extraordinary commitment, especially during the covid pandemic. The 1.5 million people who make up the paid social care workforce provide an invaluable service to the nation, especially during the pandemic. Putting social care on a sustainable footing where everybody is treated with dignity and respect is one of the biggest challenges our society faces. There are complex questions to address and we want to give them our full consideration in the light of current circumstances, which is why the Government are committed to the sustainable improvement of the adult social care system. The Department for Health and Social Care will bring forward plans for workforce reform later this year.
We are providing an extra £341 million for adult social care, to pay for infection, prevention and control measures and to support rapid testing to the end of June 2021. That will bring specific funding for adult social care during the pandemic to almost £1.8 billion. We are also providing councils with access to more than £1 billion of additional funding for social care in 2021-22, on top of the significant support provided over the past year to support the sector in dealing with covid-19.
My hon. Friend talked about the single enforcement body, which is indeed something we are consulting on and working through, not least as we move towards the introduction of an employment Bill. We are taking the time to reflect on the lessons that we have learned from the covid-19 situation—the baked-in behaviour changes to work practices in the wider sense of the employment Bill—and the single enforcement body will be a really important part of that. I look forward to my hon. Friend’s contributions to the debate when we introduce forward legislation to bring that new body into existence.
My hon. Friend made some important points and I am really pleased to have had the opportunity to respond. The Government are committed to ensuring that all workers are paid at least the minimum wage, which is their legal entitlement. We also recognise that personal budget holders and individuals who arrange their own care are often among the most vulnerable in society. When complaints are received, HMRC will work with all parties to ensure that individuals receive the help and support that they need, while continuing to protect the rights of workers. I look forward to continuing to work with ministerial colleagues to ensure that all care workers are paid appropriately under the National Minimum Wage Act.
Finally, Mr Deputy Speaker, may I associate myself with your words and wish you a very good Prorogation—or whatever the term is? Members, staff and your team have played an amazing role in allowing us to continue the scrutiny of the Government’s work and our work as a fully functioning democracy.

Nigel Evans: Thank you, Minister; that is much appreciated and I will ensure that that message gets passed on to the Speaker and the others in the team.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.

Members Eligible for a Proxy Vote

The following is the list of Members currently certified as eligible for a proxy vote, and of the Members nominated as their proxy:

  

  Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Imran Ahmad Khan (Wakefield) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Tahir Ali (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Stuart Anderson (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Edward Argar (Charnwood) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kemi Badenoch (Saffron Walden) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Margaret Beckett (Derby South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Suella Braverman (Fareham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  James Brokenshire (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudon) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Amy Callaghan (East Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Sir Alan Campbell (Tynemouth) (Con)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
  Jim Shannon


  Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Alistair Carmichael (rt. hon.) (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jo Churchill (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Feryal Clark (Enfield North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Greg Clark (Tunbridge Wells) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Theo Clarke (Stafford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Sir Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Devon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jon Cruddas (Dagenham and Rainham) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  James Daly (Bury North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Gareth Davies (Grantham and Stamford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mims Davies (Mid Sussex) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dehenna Davison (Bishop Auckland) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Marsha De Cordova (Battersea)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Leo Docherty (Aldershot) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)
  Jim Shannon


  Michelle Donelan (Chippenham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Ms Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)
  Ben Lake


  Mark Eastwood (Dewsbury) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ben Everitt (Milton Keynes North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
  Stuart Andrew


  Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mark Fletcher (Bolsover) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Nick Gibb (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Paul Girvan (South Antrim) (DUP)
  Jim Shannon


  John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Michael Gove (Surrey Heath) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Kate Griffiths (Burton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  James Grundy (Leigh) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Luke Hall (Thornbury and Yate) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Matt Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Greg Hands (Chelsea and Fulham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP)
  Ben Lake


  Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Trudy Harrison (Copeland) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  James Heappey (Wells) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Darren Henry (Broxtowe) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kate Hollern (Blackburn) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Adam Holloway (Gravesham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Paul Holmes (Eastleigh) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  John Howell (Henley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jane Hunt (Loughborough) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Mr Alister Jack (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Sajid Javid (Bromsgrove) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mark Jenkinson (Workington) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Boris Johnson (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  David Johnston (Wantage) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Simon Jupp (East Devon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Gillian Keegan (Chichester) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Robert Largan (High Peak) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
  Mr William Wragg


  Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ian Levy (Blyth Valley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Andrew Lewer (Northampton South) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
  Jim Shannon


  Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con)
  Anthony Mangnall


  Mark Logan (Bolton North East) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Karl McCartney (Lincoln) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  John Mc Nally (Falkirk) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Julie Marson (Hertford and Stortford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Johnny Mercer (Plymouth, Moor View) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Amanda Milling (Cannock Chase) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West)
  Owen Thompson


  Damien Moore (Southport) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Holly Mumby-Croft (Scunthorpe) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Neil O’Brien (Harborough) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
  Jim Shannon


  Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
  Antony Higginbotham


  Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Will Quince (Colchester) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Nicola Richards (West Bromwich East) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Angela Richardson (Guildford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Rob Roberts (Delyn) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
  Jim Shannon


  Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Lee Rowley (North East Derbyshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dean Russell (Watford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
  Ben Lake


  Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Paul Scully (Sutton and Cheam) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
  Mark Harper


  Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Grant Shapps (Welwyn Hatfield) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Alok Sharma (Reading West) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Royston Smith (Southampton, Itchen) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Amanda Solloway (Derby North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Jane Stevenson (Wolverhampton North East) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Sir Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Rishi Sunak (Richmond (Yorks)) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
  Mr William Wragg


  Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kelly Tolhurst (Rochester and Strood) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Anne-Marie Trevelyan (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Elizabeth Truss (South West Norfolk) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Matt Vickers (Stockton South) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Ben Wallace (Wyre and Preston North)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dr Jamie Wallis (Bridgend) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  David Warburton (Somerset and Frome) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Suzanne Webb (Stourbridge) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Claudia Webbe (Leicester East) (Ind)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mrs Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  John Whittingdale (Malden) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Craig Williams (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
  Ben Lake


  Gavin Williamson (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
  Jim Shannon


  Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore